A good compiler

[Ajinkya]

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites

.... snip ...

>

>Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free,
right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy
of the source that's OK right?

As a matter of fact, YES. What you can't do is supply the revised
gcc elsewhere without releasing your source modifications. Your
internal use of it is up to you. Do read the GPL license some day.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Richard wrote:

Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

.... snip ...

>>

>>You /do/ realise the
relationship between JN and lcc-win32 I presume?

Yes, I think I do.

What about the fact that many people can use it for free? How does
that equate any more differently to someone like CBFalconer
constantly offering his "C libraries"?

The fact is that this is a C group and Jacob offers a free C
environment that people can use.

As usual, this has gone totally too far and the attempts to
discredit Jacob are, frankly, rather pathetic and misplaced.

One major difference that I see is that my offerings are totally
free, include source code, and are (generally) written in purely
standard portable C. (The nmalloc package is an exception, but that
is unavoidable). Some are offered under GPL, some are placed in
the public domain.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.comwrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>><ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

I thought it was Area 51.

I heard he moved to Calais after reading something in the paper
about the good burghers...

I'll get me coat.

Calais, Maine? (pronounced callas!) :-)

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Michal Nazarewicz]

Chris Hills wrote:

>BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

Free/Open Source Software

--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenly Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +--<mina86*tlen.pl>---<jid:mina86*chrome.pl>--ooO--(_)--Ooo--

[Shadowman]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:32:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

It is? Hmm. News to me. I've been using it for, well, 20 years give or
take, never had an issue with it. Wonder why that is?

Oh, yes - because, as with all tools, I learned how to use it properly.

strcpy is no more or less safe than most other functions, when used
properly. When used improperly, well, what do you expect if you let a
semi-educated chimp write code?

Good point, but there are unfortunately quite a few semi-educated chimps
out there writing code. :) I suppose one could argue the warning is
there in hope that those who need it would try to find out *why* strcpy
is unsafe or how to use it properly. Or perhaps they'd just be
persuaded to use strcpy_s or gets_s as an alternative. Better than just
blindly churning out bad code -- not everyone's an expert, I'm afraid.

For those of us who already know better, we can just suppress or ignore
that particular warning, right?

--
SM
rot13 for email

[santosh]

CBFalconer wrote:

Chris Hills wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

Free and Open Source Software

Two quite different categories glued together for PR purposes.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:32:05 -0400, Shadowman wrote:

>strcpy is no more or less safe than most other functions, when used
properly. When used improperly, well, what do you expect if you let a
semi-educated chimp write code?

Good point, but there are unfortunately quite a few semi-educated chimps
out there writing code. :)

There are, indeed.

I suppose one could argue the warning is
there in hope that those who need it would try to find out *why* strcpy
is unsafe or how to use it properly. Or perhaps they'd just be
persuaded to use strcpy_s or gets_s as an alternative. Better than just
blindly churning out bad code -- not everyone's an expert, I'm afraid.

For those of us who already know better, we can just suppress or ignore
that particular warning, right?

I think the problem with this - for me, at least - is it's attempting to
do the Wrong Thing, yet make it appear to be the Right Thing.

One can try to make a language "safe", remove all the potentially risky
constructs, check and validate everything, hand-hold at every possible
opportunity and so forth, but what is the result of this?

I tend to think it's going to be a lot of even *worse* code, written by
people who rely on the compiler or language to spot the flaws rather than
applying good practices, while the actual good programmers get stuck with
tools that, once useful, are now crippled to the point of uselessness.

You can't prevent bad coders writing bad code; you *can*, however, make
the languages or tools so bad that good coders can no long write good code
with them.

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
[...]

In which case they should probably avoid lcc-win32 like the plague,
considering its many unusual (and standards contravening)
extensions. I may well be mistaken in this.

I believe you are. My understanding is that lcc-win32 provides a
command-line option that causes it conform to C90 and another that
*nearly* causes it to conform to C99 (some features are not
implemented). Furthermore, I think that at least some of its
extensions are done in a conforming manner, i.e., they don't affect
the behavior of any strictly conforming program; nevertheless, I think
that the above-mentioned command-line options disable those
extensions.

(This is based on what I've read; I don't actually use lcc-win32, so
don't take my word for all this.)

This is quite similar to what gcc and other compilers do, and there's
no good reason to object to it. Most compilers are not conforming by
default; most compilers are conforming (modulo bugs and the occasional
unimplemented feature) in some mode.

The problem, of course, is ... well, we've already pounded that into
the ground quite enough in this thread.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:10:10 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

Why is making money the only criteria here?

Spam is unwelcome everywhere, and spammers deserve to die slow, painful
deaths. you know, spam... unsolicited commercial posts, such as, oh,
advertising products you have a financial interest in?

'Sides, who'd want a tool - compiler or otherwise - produced by such a
degenerate lowlife they have to resort to spam in the first place? Not
like you could ever trust it; they've demonstrated they have no morals, no
ethics, no concern for others.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:32:05 -0400, Shadowman wrote:

>>strcpy is no more or less safe than most other functions, when used
properly. When used improperly, well, what do you expect if you let a
semi-educated chimp write code?

Good point, but there are unfortunately quite a few semi-educated chimps
out there writing code. :)

There are, indeed.

>I suppose one could argue the warning is
there in hope that those who need it would try to find out *why* strcpy
is unsafe or how to use it properly. Or perhaps they'd just be
persuaded to use strcpy_s or gets_s as an alternative. Better than just
blindly churning out bad code -- not everyone's an expert, I'm afraid.

For those of us who already know better, we can just suppress or ignore
that particular warning, right?

I think the problem with this - for me, at least - is it's attempting to
do the Wrong Thing, yet make it appear to be the Right Thing.

One can try to make a language "safe", remove all the potentially risky
constructs, check and validate everything, hand-hold at every possible
opportunity and so forth, but what is the result of this?

I tend to think it's going to be a lot of even *worse* code, written by
people who rely on the compiler or language to spot the flaws rather than
applying good practices, while the actual good programmers get stuck with
tools that, once useful, are now crippled to the point of uselessness.

You can't prevent bad coders writing bad code; you *can*, however, make
the languages or tools so bad that good coders can no long write good code
with them.

This is a valid point of view, but as always in these things, it depends
on many other factors if it is applicable or not.

Why you do not build big systems in assembly language?

Because the abstraction level is so low, that even careful programmers
have a difficult time avoiding mistakes.

Usage of bad tools can be compensated by the programmer, but they will
eventually provoke an error. Eeven if the programmer is good at his/her
job, he/she is human, and hence mistakes are unavoidable.

A good language gives tools that are not foolproof, but that help
avoid mistakes.

Robert Seacord, of CERT, says about strcpy:

(article in Dr Dobbs, Oct 1st, 2005)
<quote>
Standard Library string functions like strcpy() are not considered
secure by today's standards. The Managed String Library is one possible
solution.

Robert C. Seacord is Senior Vulnerability Analyst for CERT/CC and author
of Secure Coding in C and C++ (Addison-Wesley, 2005). He can be reached
at rc*@cert.org.

Strings—such as command-line arguments, environment variables, and
console input—are of special concern in secure programming because they
account for most of the data exchanged between an end user and a
software system. Graphic and web-based applications make extensive use
of text input fields and, because of standards like XML, data exchanged
between programs is increasingly in string form as well. As a result,
weaknesses in string representation, string management, and string
manipulation have led to a broad range of software vulnerabilities and
exploits.

Many of the vulnerabilities in existing C code result from interactions
with standardized library calls that, by today's standards, would no
longer be considered secure (strcpy(), for example). Unfortunately,
because these functions are standard, they continue to be supported and
developers continue to use them—often to detrimental effect.

<end quote>
The article goes on, pointing several of the many bugs you can build
into your code by using strcpy. It makes for a good read.

jacob

[Keith Thompson]

Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites:

[snips]
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:10:10 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

Why is making money the only criteria here?

Spam is unwelcome everywhere, and spammers deserve to die slow, painful
deaths. you know, spam... unsolicited commercial posts, such as, oh,
advertising products you have a financial interest in?

The usual Usenet definition of "spam" is a post with a Breidbart index
exceeding 20. (Google "Breidbart index" for more information.) That
means essentially the same article being cross-posted or multi-posted
multiple times. Any commercial aspect has nothing to do with it;
posting "Have a nice day!" to 100 newsgroups is spam just as much as
posting "MAKE MONEY FAST!!".

Nothing jacob navia has done comes close to this criterion. I would
argue that much of what he has posted is off-topic, but that doesn't
make it spam.

Commercial postings may themselves be considered unacceptable here,
but not because they're spam.

There is a tendency, I think, to assume that all bad things in a given
field fall into a single category; all Usenet abuse is spam, all
malware is a virus, etc.

If you want to criticize jacob, go ahead (though I suggest, yet again,
doing so only in direct response to posts that you deem worthy of
criticism) -- but please don't weaken the term "spam" by using it
where it doesn't apply.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

Which ISO standard is that one?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>

... snip ...

>>
BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

Free Open Source Software apparently. No my acronym but one used by the
open source crowd
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites

... snip ...

>>

>>Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free,
right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy
of the source that's OK right?

As a matter of fact, YES. What you can't do is supply the revised
gcc elsewhere without releasing your source modifications. Your
internal use of it is up to you. Do read the GPL license some day.

I didn't say internal.

So I can't modify/adapt etc the FOSS SW and issue it without disclosing
the source.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <3l************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:10:10 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

Why is making money the only criteria here?

Spam is unwelcome everywhere, and spammers deserve to die slow, painful
deaths. you know, spam... unsolicited commercial posts, such as, oh,
advertising products you have a financial interest in?

That is not the only definition of spam. Spam does not have to be just
commercial

>'Sides, who'd want a tool - compiler or otherwise - produced by such a
degenerate lowlife they have to resort to spam in the first place? Not
like you could ever trust it; they've demonstrated they have no morals, no
ethics, no concern for others.

Much the same with many who spam news groups with the answer Linux, gcc
etc no mater how unsuitable it is. However I note that in clc that is
permitted whilst the odd one or two who are not of theFOSS faith get
savaged no matter what.

If the net nannies on here stopped all this persecution and OT rubbish
we would have a much better signal to noise ration. Their OT posts
generate most of the noise.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

The usual Usenet definition of "spam" is a post with a Breidbart index
exceeding 20.

So what you're saying is that the Breidbard index fails to take into
account multiple different articles all advertising the same product.
If so, it is not a good method for measuring spam.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Bos]

Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:32:05 -0400, Shadowman wrote:

strcpy is no more or less safe than most other functions, when used
properly. When used improperly, well, what do you expect if you let a
semi-educated chimp write code?

Good point, but there are unfortunately quite a few semi-educated chimps
out there writing code. :)

There are, indeed.

I suppose one could argue the warning is
there in hope that those who need it would try to find out *why* strcpy
is unsafe or how to use it properly. Or perhaps they'd just be
persuaded to use strcpy_s or gets_s as an alternative. Better than just
blindly churning out bad code -- not everyone's an expert, I'm afraid.

For those of us who already know better, we can just suppress or ignore
that particular warning, right?

I think the problem with this - for me, at least - is it's attempting to
do the Wrong Thing, yet make it appear to be the Right Thing.

True, but the greatest problem is that the educated chimps are not going
to be using strcpy_s() in the first place. strcpy_s() will be used by
people with a bee in their bonnet about security-by-magic; the educated
chimps will keep using strcpy() on uninitialised pointers; intelligent
programmers will continue to use strcpy() safely. Thus, this entire
_s-debacle will be yet another useless bag on the side of C.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

Chris Hills wrote:

BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

That which is advocated by FOSSils.

Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

Much the same with many who spam news groups with the answer Linux,
gcc
etc no mater how unsuitable it is. However I note that in clc that
is permitted whilst the odd one or two who are not of theFOSS faith
get savaged no matter what.

Chris, you're over-stating your case, and weakening it as a result.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>>Chris Hills wrote:

>>>

... snip ...

>>>
BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

Free Open Source Software apparently. No my acronym but one used by
the open source crowd

The fact that so many in here didn't know what it meant (or, in my case,
had to guess) should clue you in to the possibility that you have
mischaracterised many of the regular contributors to this group.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>>the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is a preliminary draft of C99, dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>>>the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is a preliminary draft of C99, dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Chris Hills is (or was) on the British
contingent of the ISO C Committee, in which case I suspect that his
question was rhetorical.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites

... snip ...

>>>
Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free,
right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy
of the source that's OK right?

>As a matter of fact, YES. What you can't do is supply the revised
gcc elsewhere without releasing your source modifications. Your
internal use of it is up to you. Do read the GPL license some day.

I didn't say internal.

But I did. Quite deliberately.

>
So I can't modify/adapt etc the FOSS SW and issue it without
disclosing the source.

Why bring FOSS into it? You were talking about gcc, which is
covered by the GPL licence. GNU holds the copyright.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description
is easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in
.pdf format).

Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is the last draft of the 1999 standard. N1124 is a draft of
revisions proposed to the 1999 standard. Both have the complete
standard content. I suspect you know this already.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites

>>>the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is a preliminary draft of C99,

Precisely... It is a DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from
it is meaningless.

>dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

Again a committee DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from it
is meaningless.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Charlton Wilbur]

>>>>"KB" == Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites:

KBOne can try to make a language "safe", remove all the
KBpotentially risky constructs, check and validate everything,
KBhand-hold at every possible opportunity and so forth, but what
KBis the result of this?

Java.

KBI tend to think it's going to be a lot of even *worse* code,
KBwritten by people who rely on the compiler or language to spot
KBthe flaws rather than applying good practices, while the
KBactual good programmers get stuck with tools that, once
KBuseful, are now crippled to the point of uselessness.

And this is exactly what has happened in the Java world.

I know a brilliant programmer who has spent the last decade working in
Java because it was the easiest way he could get into building big
systems. He's of the belief that Java is a fine language, and that
most of its reputation comes from the legion of minimally-competent
Java programmers: because of Java's resilience and handholding, the
level of programmer proficiency and code quality that would result in
an uncompilable and frequently crashing program in C or C++ instead
results in a program that compiles and runs, but runs dog-slow and
produces the wrong result.

Meanwhile, many competent programmers are avoiding Java completely
because the tools and the processes hamstring them, and they'll have
to work for or with or clean up after the aforementioned
minimally-competent Java programmers. That's certainly the reason
that I've avoided Java.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 08:40:44 +0000, Richard Bos wrote:

True, but the greatest problem is that the educated chimps are not going
to be using strcpy_s() in the first place. strcpy_s() will be used by
people with a bee in their bonnet about security-by-magic; the educated
chimps will keep using strcpy() on uninitialised pointers; intelligent
programmers will continue to use strcpy() safely. Thus, this entire
_s-debacle will be yet another useless bag on the side of C.

So yet another kiss-a-toad-and-get-a-wart that buys bugger all for anyone
with a clue, while doing nothing for those without. Yes, definitely,
let's all get behind this one.

Blech.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>>In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

Which ISO standard is that one?

N869 is a preliminary draft of C99,

Precisely... It is a DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting
from it is meaningless.

>>dated Jan 18, 1999. N1124 is a
post-C99 version, incorporating the C99 standard plus TC1 and TC2.

Again a committee DRAFT not a standard of any sort and quoting from it
is meaningless.

Then perhaps you could have said that.

I frequently quote from n1124.pdf. All changes are clearly marked
with change bars (I also have a copy of the actual C99 standard).
Furthermore, my understanding is that TC1 and TC2 are official
modifications to the standard, so N1124 is more accurate than the
original C99 standard (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

Did the definition of strcpy() change between n869, C99, and n1124?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Did the definition of strcpy() change between n869, C99, and n1124?

Yes, 7.21.1p3 (in n1124) was added in C99 TC2.

[Keith Thompson]

Harald van Dijk <tr*****@gmail.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Did the definition of strcpy() change between n869, C99, and n1124?

Yes, 7.21.1p3 (in n1124) was added in C99 TC2.

Ah, good catch.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <f8**********@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Harald van
=?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail.comwrites

>Thank you very much. That to me is a fair price, and it appears to be
available without problems even locally.

Where is "locally"?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <f8**********@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Harald van
=?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail.comwrites

>>Thank you very much. That to me is a fair price, and it appears to be
available without problems even locally.

Where is "locally"?

As suggested by my headers, I live in the Netherlands. Two Dutch online
shops I've bought books from before, Bol and Selexyz if any other Dutch
folks are interested, offer the printed version jacob navia mentioned for
53 and 60 Euros respectively.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <f8**********@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Harald van
=?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?= <tr*****@gmail.comwrites

>>Thank you very much. That to me is a fair price, and it appears to be
available without problems even locally.

Where is "locally"?

Anywhere less than 10000m above sea level.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

Harald van Dijk wrote:

[...]

>Well, I'm quoting from the drafts because even though I would be
quite happy
to purchase a copy of the standard for the price ANSI charges for it, I am
not able to do so: payment by credit card is simply not an option for me
(that's assuming ANSI doesn't sell only to folks from the US; I'm not sure
about that), and all other methods I am aware of would cost me over 100
Euros extra. If you can tell me how I can obtain the official standard for
a reasonable price (which may be higher than ANSI's, but more than four
times as high is ridiculous), please let me know, I would be very
interested. If you cannot tell me how to obtain the official standard for a
reasonable price, I will continue to rely on the drafts. How you feel about
that is up to you; I don't and won't feel bad about it.

"The C Standard" Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No 1"
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
ISBN 0-470-84573-2

[...]

Alas, you can't grep dead trees, and you can't copy-and-paste any
passage more than once.

Are they going to publish a version with TC2?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

>Harald van D0 >[...]

>>Well, I'm quoting from the drafts because even though I would be
quite happy
to purchase a copy of the standard for the price ANSI charges for it, I am
not able to do so: payment by credit card is simply not an option for me
(that's assuming ANSI doesn't sell only to folks from the US; I'm not sure
about that), and all other methods I am aware of would cost me over 100
Euros extra. If you can tell me how I can obtain the official standard for
a reasonable price (which may be higher than ANSI's, but more than four
times as high is ridiculous), please let me know, I would be very
interested. If you cannot tell me how to obtain the official standard for a
reasonable price, I will continue to rely on the drafts. How you feel about
that is up to you; I don't and won't feel bad about it.

"The C Standard" Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No 1"
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
ISBN 0-470-84573-2

[...]

Alas, you can't grep dead trees, and you can't copy-and-paste any
passage more than once.

Are they going to publish a version with TC2?

I though we were going to get a C0* with TC1 and TC2 rolled in but it
hasn't happened. I think the problem is that C99 *still* has not been
taken up by the industry and they are looking where to go next.

There has been some discussion of dropping things from the next version.
It was suggested that anything not implemented by more than two
compilers could be dropped. However it was still very early stages of
a "what if" sort of conversation at the WG15 meeting in April.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

[...]

>>(Expect me to be a bit terse for the next few days, until this huge
bandage comes off my left hand.)

Best wishes.... I trust it is nothing life threatening and will heal
fully

Thanks. Minor surgery, healing nicely.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

[...]

>>>(Expect me to be a bit terse for the next few days, until this huge
bandage comes off my left hand.)

Best wishes.... I trust it is nothing life threatening and will heal
fully

Thanks. Minor surgery, healing nicely.

Right! Back to the fight...

Is wishing some one OT ? :-))))))
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Right! Back to the fight...

Please, Chris, if it's a fight you want, can you take it to rec.boxing
or something? Or if you are just here to disagree with people, then
please say so explicitly.

At the moment, I have you down as "clueful person who nevertheless
doesn't understand why clc defines topicality the way it does", or
perhaps "clueful person who does understand but doesn't agree"
(although I think that's less likely, TBH).

But if in reality you are "clueful person who enjoys indulging in
argument for argument's sake", then there's nothing wrong with that and
I can see how it might have its appeal, but frankly I have better
things to do than to argue the toss with people just as a way of
passing the time.

So if you're this latter kind, please fess up so that I can protect my
time usage accordingly.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>>In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

[...]

>>>>(Expect me to be a bit terse for the next few days, until this huge
bandage comes off my left hand.)

Best wishes.... I trust it is nothing life threatening and will heal
fully

Thanks. Minor surgery, healing nicely.

Right! Back to the fight...

Is wishing some one OT ? :-))))))

Absolutely, but I'll let it pass just this once.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Chris Hills said:

>Right! Back to the fight...

Please, Chris, if it's a fight you want, can you take it to rec.boxing
or something? Or if you are just here to disagree with people, then
please say so explicitly.

[...]

I think he was joking.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>Chris Hills said:

>>Right! Back to the fight...

Please, Chris, if it's a fight you want, can you take it to rec.boxing
or something? Or if you are just here to disagree with people, then
please say so explicitly.

[...]

I think he was joking.

I was.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <wd******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>Chris Hills said:

>Right! Back to the fight...

Please, Chris, if it's a fight you want, can you take it to rec.boxing
or something? Or if you are just here to disagree with people, then
please say so explicitly.

Please quote correctly . You missed out the smileys
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>Chris Hills said:
Right! Back to the fight...

Please, Chris, if it's a fight you want, can you take it to
rec.boxing or something? Or if you are just here to disagree with
people, then please say so explicitly.

[...]

I think he was joking.

I was.

Okay, fairysnuff... I apologise for misreading you.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[David Thompson]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:39:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
<snip>

So my own recommendation to the OP is that he finds at least two
compilers conforming to ISO/IEC 9899 (any version), each from a
different provider, and that he tests all his code on both. If one of
the compilers can be installed only on a mainframe, so much the better.

How is that better? Unless the OP has a mainframe (very unlikely) or
access to one (still unlikely), then the tests on that compiler are
going to take quite a while -- almost as long as your infinite loop
program, which BTW I hope is still going along nicely.

Testing on (at least) two implementations that are as different as you
can manage is certainly a good idea. But IF running Windows, I'd say
that MSVC and gcc-cygwin (avoiding MS' libc) get you most of the way
there, at zero cost and very conveniently.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net

[Richard Heathfield]

David Thompson said:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:39:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
<snip>

>So my own recommendation to the OP is that he finds at least two
compilers conforming to ISO/IEC 9899 (any version), each from a
different provider, and that he tests all his code on both. If one of
the compilers can be installed only on a mainframe, so much the
better.

How is that better?

It's surprising how many character set assumptions an EBCDIC
implementation can reveal, and plenty of filesystem assumptions fall
apart on a SDS/PDS filesystem.

Unless the OP has a mainframe (very unlikely) or
access to one (still unlikely),

Why unlikely? Most - indeed, almost all - of the C programmers I've
actually met in person have had access to mainframe computers.

then the tests on that compiler are
going to take quite a while -- almost as long as your infinite loop
program, which BTW I hope is still going along nicely.

Oh yes - but it's a little early to report on progress. All I can say is
that it hasn't quite reached infinity yet. Watch this space .

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999