microsoft visual c++

[paz]

Hi,

Does anybody know how to start new C project with microsoft visual c++?

I've created a file, but Tools-Run is inActive.

How can I make it Active?

[Keith Thompson]

Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@u sit.uio.nowrite s:

CBFalconer writes:

>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

>>Then give correct information instead. I haven't browsed more than
a fraction of that thread, but the OP was clearly not thinking of
"the ISO C standard", just "C", there is no reason to assume the OP
there learned anything at all from your messages. He even had to
ask in which way you were being obnoxious just to understand your
reply.

What do you think defines "C". So you have your own private C
standard to which you refer? (...)

C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

[...]

It's a "conforming program" as defined in C99 4p7:

A _conforming program_ is one that is acceptable to a conforming
implementation.

I could grab a copy of any open-source conforming C compiler, modify
it to accept (as an extension) any arbitrary input I like, and cause
that input to become a "conforming program".

We don't often discuss the category of "conforming programs" here
because it's too broad to be useful. I believe it was included in the
standard for political reasons. (Not that there's anything wrong with
that.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Richard Heathfield]

Hallvard B Furuseth said:

<snip>

C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

Remove the 'v' in void and I'd still call it a C program. With a fatal
typo.

How many typos do you allow before it stops being a C program?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Richard Heathfield writes:

>Hallvard B Furuseth said:

>>Richard Heathfield writes:

>>>Hallvard B Furuseth said:
Richard Heathfield writes:
Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
information .

Then give correct information instead.

I did.

You are right for the first message, I've read that thread quite out of
order. Sorry about that.

Your apology is accepted.

Thank you. Er, partial apology anyway...

>What you didn't do was answer the OP's question.

That is because the OP's question didn't really have a C answer,
except perhaps "The C Standard doesn't require your implementation to
have a bss or a stack", which is what I said.

Yup, that's one thing I'm complaining about. There is no way to tell if
the answer actually told him anything he needed/wanted to know. If he
was looking for "how to write a conforming C program", fine. The
posting didn't indicate that, however. If he was exploring his computer
and trying to learn how it worked at low level, it was a near useless
answer.

Just that it was posted here doesn't mean that it shall and must be
interpreted in terms on Standard C, in particular when it's obvious that
the poster is not thinking about Standard C.

Nor does an otherwise correct answer suddenly become incorrect just
because it is posted here instead of in some non-C group. The
"incorrect" answers you refer to _were_ correct. Just not Standard C
answers.

>He made some assumptions - about the implementation he was
using, obviously, you could have said something about those particular
assumptions.

I did - by saying "The C Standard doesn't require your implementation
to have a bss or a stack" - i.e. I indicated that he was making
incorrect assumptions.

If he had asked the question it terms of standard C, that would be so.
He didn't, so you had no info to assume he was making incorrect
assumptions. Maybe he was, or maybe you are the one making incorrect
assumptions. The latter seems more likely in this case.

>OTOH, your following "C&V please" responses did not give information at
all.

"C&V please" is a request for information, not an offer of information. Mr
Navia had claimed that the OP was correct to think that "it is stack", and
I was asking Mr Navia to give supporting evidence for his claim.

OK, you were _not_ interested in that point at seeing the OP "not being
misled by incorrect information", then. And you gave the same answer to
"MQ", who there was no reason to assume knew what you meant.

>>The OP even had to post a followup just to learn what you meant.

Fine, but I was asking Mr Navia, not the OP, to provide that supporting
information.

Except that you already knew there wasn't any, so that was not really
what you were asking for. That's where I see it as equivalent to
trolling, because you are asking for the thread to expand to an old
quarrel. Also it's a quarrel which is likely of no interest to the OP,
yet the OP will have to wade through it if he wants to find any posts
which _do_ interest him.

>>>I haven't browsed more than a fraction of that thread, but the OP was
clearly not thinking of "the ISO C standard", just "C",

The one defines the other.

In your mind, obviously. In the OP's and several others' minds,
obviously "C means something wider than that,

Neither their view of what C is, nor mine, is normative.

Fine:-)

>or they don't have the standard anyway.

<shrugIt's available.

But possession of the Standard is not a required ticket to this
newsgroup.

>BTW, I guess my mention of comp.unix.progr ammer was wrong. After all,
there is a definition of Unix too, it's even trademarked, so one
shouldn't refer to comp.unix.progr ammer for anything which not the
trademarked Unix, right?

No idea. That's a question for comp.unix.progr ammer, not comp.lang.c.

That was supposed to be a rhetorical question...

--
Hallvard

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Richard Heathfield writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth said:

>C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

Remove the 'v' in void and I'd still call it a C program. With a fatal
typo.

How many typos do you allow before it stops being a C program?

I neither know nor care. You run into the same problem of defining what
is and is not a C program whatever you call C anyway, like "this posting
is a C program because I intend to see how well it fits the ISO C
standard."

Point is though, that if one wants a definition of what is or is not C,
intent looks as reasonable as anything.

--
Hallvard

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Keith Thompson writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@u sit.uio.nowrite s:

>C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

[...]

It's a "conforming program" as defined in C99 4p7:

It is? OK, make that
__attribute__(( pure)) int main() {return 0;}
then (a GCC extension, if it makes my point easier to understand.

(Note, I may be posting a bit irregularly this week, sorry about that.
Bad time to start a thread like this.)

--
Hallvard

[Richard Heathfield]

Hallvard B Furuseth said:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>>Hallvard B Furuseth said:

>>BTW, I guess my mention of comp.unix.progr ammer was wrong. After all,
there is a definition of Unix too, it's even trademarked, so one
shouldn't refer to comp.unix.progr ammer for anything which not the
trademarked Unix, right?

No idea. That's a question for comp.unix.progr ammer, not comp.lang.c.

That was supposed to be a rhetorical question...

....and you got a rhetorical answer.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Keith Thompson]

Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@u sit.uio.nowrite s:

Keith Thompson writes:

>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.**********@u sit.uio.nowrite s:

>>C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

[...]

It's a "conforming program" as defined in C99 4p7:

It is? OK, make that
__attribute__(( pure)) int main() {return 0;}
then (a GCC extension, if it makes my point easier to understand.

That's also a "conforming program", as far as I can tell, assuming
that (a) it's acceptable to gcc, and (b) gcc is a conforming
implementation. The standard's definition of "conforming program" is
specifically intended to allow for the use of extensions.

C99 4p6:

[...]
A conforming implementation may have extensions (including
additional library functions), provided they do not alter the
behavior of any strictly conforming program.

C99 4p7:

A _conforming program_ is one that is acceptable to a conforming
implementation.

with a footnote:

Strictly conforming programs are intended to be maximally portable
among conforming implementations . Conforming programs may depend
upon nonportable features of a conforming implementation.

My point is that the term "conforming program" is, IMHO, too broad to
be particularly useful. There should be a category of programs that
are acceptable to all possible conforming implementations without
necessarily being strictly conforming.

But the whole issue is mired in political requirements, and any
proposal for a change to the standard would likely generate more heat
than light.

But we were talking about, um, (looking back up to the Subject line)
topicality. So, to get back to that, in my opinion, discussion
of the fact that your program above is a "conforming program" is
certainly topical, but a discussion of the specific semantics of
"__attribute__( (pure))" would not be. More generally, discussion
of the fact that extensions are allowed, and what form they can
take in a conforming implementation, is topical; discussion of
specific extensions is more appropriate in a system-specific or
compiler-specific newsgroup.

To go back to your earlier example, we can't just say that
"void main()" is invalid, illegal, bad, evil, etc. We have to
acknowledge that an implementation is allowed to support it, but it's
non-portable and there's rarely a good reason to use it in a program
intended for a hosted implementation.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[pete]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Point is though,
that if one wants a definition of what is or is not C,
intent looks as reasonable as anything.

I consider a program which invokes undefined behavior,
to be not a C program,
because the code doesn't mean anything.

--
pete

[Keith Thompson]

pete <pf*****@mindsp ring.comwrites:

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

>Point is though,
that if one wants a definition of what is or is not C,
intent looks as reasonable as anything.

I consider a program which invokes undefined behavior,
to be not a C program,
because the code doesn't mean anything.

Ok, but I'd call it a meaningless C program.

In fact, it can definitely be a "conforming program" as defined by the
standard.

I think the real conclusion is that "Is this a C program?" isn't
always a useful question to ask, much less answer.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Eric Sosman]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>How many typos do you allow before it stops being a C program?

I neither know nor care. You run into the same problem of defining what
is and is not a C program whatever you call C anyway, like "this posting
is a C program because I intend to see how well it fits the ISO C
standard."

Point is though, that if one wants a definition of what is or is not C,
intent looks as reasonable as anything.

So, then, is this a C program?

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
const char *addressee = "world";
puts ("Hello, %s!\n", addresee);
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}

The intent, I hope, is clear -- but to my way of thinking,
it's not C.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid