GCC compiler error

Tsb

Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.

#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
#MYFILE.NAME

then it works well. but second time I use like this, there are some
errors.

Errors are:

#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
#MYFILE.NAME
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1804: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1809: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1811: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\230' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\202' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1820: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1825: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\203' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1836: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:7:1841: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:1: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\234' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\204' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:10: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:15: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\250' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\204' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:26: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:31: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '`' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\225' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:42: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:8:47: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9:1: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\225' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\4' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\10' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9:10: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\3' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9:15: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\16' in program
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9:17: warning: null character(s) ignored
/home/tsb/C/C.c:9: error: stray '\225' in program

Does anyone know why it happed?

Tsb

Or Should I use another compiler on FreeBSD? Which one is suitable for
beginners(like me) on FreeBSD ?

Walter Roberson

In article <11*********************@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
Tsb <nt********@gmail.comwrote:

>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.

>#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME

You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.
--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers

Tsb

On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:

In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,

Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.
#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME

You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

--
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by
demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers

Ian Collins

Tsb wrote:

On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
>In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,

Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.
#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

type it in again...

--
Ian Collins.

Tsb

On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:

Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,

Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.
#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

type it in again...

--
Ian Collins.

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

Richard Bos

Tsb <nt********@gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
>Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
>>write my C program, and then just do like this.
>>#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
>You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?
type it in again...

--
Ian Collins.

Do not quote signatures, please.

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

Simple: do _not_ do that. Not many times, not once. You _cannot_ use the
same name for your C file and for your compiled program, as a moment's
consideration will explain to you.

Richard

borkhuis

On Oct 12, 8:32 am, Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:

On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:

Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
>In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,

>Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
>>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
>>write my C program, and then just do like this.
>>#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
>You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

type it in again...

--
Ian Collins.

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

Just don't do that. Try something like:
gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.OTHERNAME
MYFILE.OTHERNAME

These commands you can execute as many times as you want.

But first start reading the gcc-manual, especially the section on the -
o option.

Kind regards,
Johan Borkhuis

Tsb

On Oct 12, 2:46 pm, r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
>write my C program, and then just do like this.
>#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

type it in again...

--
Ian Collins.

Do not quote signatures, please.

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

Simple: do _not_ do that. Not many times, not once. You _cannot_ use the
same name for your C file and for your compiled program, as a moment's
consideration will explain to you.

Oh. I understood. I shouldn't write "MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME"

I just tried like this and it worked very well. Now I got it. Thanks.

#gcc /home/tsb/C/C.c -o /home/tsb/C/a
#/home/tsb/C/a

Two names has to be different.

>
Richard

Keith Thompson

Tsb <nt********@gmail.comwrites:

On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
>Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
write my C program, and then just do like this.
#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.

Now what do i have to do?

type it in again...

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

This is really a question about your compiler, not about the C
language, but the problem is common to most compilers.

C source files are normally named with a ".c" suffix. For example:

gcc myfile.c -o myfile

If you have more questions about this, try gnu.gcc.help.

<WAY_OFFTOPIC>
The '#' prompt implies that you're probably running as root. Don't do
that. You're making a mistake that destroys a single file; similar
mistakes can easily damage your system. Use an ordinary user account
unless you have a specific need for root privileges. If you have more
questions about this, try comp.unix.questions.
</WAY_OFFTOPIC>

--
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"

jacob navia

Keith Thompson wrote:

Tsb <nt********@gmail.comwrites:
>On Oct 12, 2:23 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
>>Tsb wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:14 pm, rober...@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)
wrote:
In article <1192168877.173533.17...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
Tsb <ntsetsb...@gmail.comwrote:
>Now I use FreeBSD 7.0 Current with Gnome. And I use Anjuta IDE to
>write my C program, and then just do like this.
>#gcc MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME
You overwrote your source file with the compiled binary.
Now what do i have to do?
type it in again...

I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

This is really a question about your compiler, not about the C
language, but the problem is common to most compilers.

Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Mark McIntyre

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:32:56 -0000, in comp.lang.c , Tsb
<nt********@gmail.comwrote:

>I type it again. Then compile once and there still will be error.

I want to execute my program many times.

I am new in C, so I don't know clearly. If I want to use "#gcc
MYFILE.NAME -o MYFILE.NAME " many times, what will I have to do?

You need to read the instruction manual for gcc.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

vipvipvipvip.ru

On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:

Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

jacob navia

vi*************@gmail.com wrote:

On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
>Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

Obviously

I should erase the source file as gcc does.

:-)

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Keith Thompson

vi*************@gmail.com writes:

On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
>Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

Surely there's enough *constructive* criticism available that
meaningless insults are unnecessary.

--
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"

Kenny McCormack

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

>vi*************@gmail.com writes:
>On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
>>Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

Surely there's enough *constructive* criticism available that
meaningless insults are unnecessary.

Meaningless insults are what this ng is all about.
Surely you've been around long enough to know that.

Kelsey Bjarnason

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:21:07 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>vi*************@gmail.com writes:
>>On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to
the input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

Surely there's enough *constructive* criticism available that
meaningless insults are unnecessary.

Meaningless insults are what this ng is all about. Surely you've been
around long enough to know that.

Funny, in the years I've been following it, it's been about C - despite
endless attempts by some folks to expand that into other areas -
Windows. Algorithm analysis. Gardening. Whatever.

Charlie Gordon

"jacob navia" <ja***@nospam.orga écrit dans le message de news:
47***********************@news.orange.fr...

vi*************@gmail.com wrote:
>On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
>>Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

is ``horrible C'' a new dialect of C ?
or are you proposing a name for C with lcc-win32 extensions ?

Obviously

I should erase the source file as gcc does.

No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.

:-)

Indeed.

--
Chqrlie.

Richard

"Charlie Gordon" <ne**@chqrlie.orgwrites:

"jacob navia" <ja***@nospam.orga Ã©crit dans le message de news:
47***********************@news.orange.fr...
>vi*************@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Oct 12, 11:15 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.orgwrote:
Some. lcc-win will refuse an output file name that is identical to the
input file name

Indeed, but lcc-win is a horrible C compiler.

is ``horrible C'' a new dialect of C ?
or are you proposing a name for C with lcc-win32 extensions ?

>Obviously

I should erase the source file as gcc does.

No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.

IMO he should do what the hell he wants with it.

>
>:-)

Indeed.

Saying "Indeed" doesn't make you a Heathfield clone you know.

Richard Heathfield

Charlie Gordon said:

<snip>

No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.

Provided there are no legal objections (e.g. GPL "pollution"), isn't it up
to him what he does with his source code?

I wouldn't care to put an accurate figure on the percentage of my code that
I publish, but it makes up a very small percentage of the code I write.
How much I publish is my decision, not yours. I see no reason why the same
shouldn't apply to Mr Navia.

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

Keith Thompson

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

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:21:07 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:

[snip]

Funny, in the years I've been following it, it's been about C - despite
endless attempts by some folks to expand that into other areas -
Windows. Algorithm analysis. Gardening. Whatever.

Please don't feed the troll.

--
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"

rosewater

Richard wrote:

Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
he should behave.

Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
obsessed rants.

The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
you decide to back the loser.

Kenny McCormack

In article <ja************@news.individual.net>,
the good and sensible Richard <rg****@gmail.comeloquently wrote:
....

>This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.

Why else ask for the sources???

>Did you read Jacob's comments or are you just another "he who shall not
be named" sock puppet?

No doubt.

Charlie Gordon

<ro*******@mailinator.coma écrit dans le message de news:
11*********************@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.co m...

Richard wrote:
>Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
he should behave.

Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
obsessed rants.

The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
you decide to back the loser.

Yes, I made two jokes.
I was trying to understate the "horrible" comment.
I was not knocking the compiler at all.
I was not dictating Jacob anything, but stating my opinion.
As far as rudeness goes, you rosewater are among the worst abusers on the
newsgroup.

--
Chqrlie.

Keith Thompson

ro*******@mailinator.com writes:
[...]

The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
you decide to back the loser.

It is not a simple statement of fact. It is unnecessarily rude and
deliberately inflammatory.

Since you know how jacob reacts to such insults, I can only assume you
were trying to elicit exactly that reaction.

You are a troll. Please go away.

--
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"

jameskuyper

Kenny McCormack wrote:
....

And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.

Why else ask for the sources???

As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof

jacob navia

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

Kenny McCormack wrote:
...
>And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.

Why else ask for the sources???

As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof

My program is distributed freely. That is why the accuse me
(anonymously) of a "morbid interest for money". Then, I do not
know how C works, nor I do know anything at all. The fact that my
programs work and are used by tens of thousands of users all
over the wold is a proof that I do not know how to program.

lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This
is the PROOF that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the
most popular C99 implementations in the world.

Obviously those people have produced software more successful
than mine, specially Mark McIntyre, "old wolf" etc... Everyone
knows about them. *Their* programs can also be freely downloaded
isn't it?

Yet another problem for those people is the fact that I have
implemented the standard C, not some obsolete standard they appreciate.
Because they have all the time "standard C" in their mouths but when
it comes to the real standard then they say that... well they do not
like it, that nobody uses it, etc etc.

Since my program works, and people like it, it is badly written,
OBVIOUSLY!

Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:

If I have people that insult me anonymously, *I* am responsible for
*their* behavior because by writing and distributing a C compiler for
free I somehow "provoked" them into that. They just couldn't do
otherwise the poor people.

So let's stop this polemic. I will not reply to any messages in this
thread, and give these people more importance than what they actually
have.

I will just go on working for the C community as I have done since
more than 12 years.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Ben Bacarisse

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrites:

lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This
is the PROOF that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the
most popular C99 implementations in the world.

<snip>

Yet another problem for those people is the fact that I have
implemented the standard C,

Would it not be better to say that it is nearly C99? When I posted a
few problem programs (in a other group, since it is off-topic here),
you replied that those bits were "not implemented". That is fine, of
course, (very few compilers are fully C99 conforming) but glossing
over the bits that don't work adds to the suspicion that you put more
value on marketing spin than technical accuracy.

--
Ben.

Joachim Schmitz

"James Kuyper Jr." <ja*********@verizon.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04...

jacob navia wrote:
>ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
...
However, I'm also not going to assume that just because a lot of people
have downloaded your product, that it's necessarily a good one. After all,
Microsoft has been enormously successful.

a billion flies can't be wrong: dung tastes wonderfull!

Bye, Jojo

Kenny McCormack

In article <WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04>,
James Kuyper Jr. <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:

>jacob navia wrote:
>ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
...

>>As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof

...
>Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:

I'd like to point out that it is not "my" logic, I'm merely explaining
my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.

Yes. There is. Though maybe not on the surface. But if you scratch
underneath a little, it's pretty obvious.

And what makes us truly sad is the realization that, sure as the day
turns into night, if Jacob did publish his source code, someone (i.e.,
Heathfield, either directly or via a sockpuppet) would see fit to post a
line-by-line critique, complete with a snarky comment at every turn.
We've seen these line-by-line critiques before, and the glee and obvious
joy that the posters take in them is truly sickening.

What a waste of human potential!

jameskuyper

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <WFoRi.37261$uC1.21103@trnddc04>,
James Kuyper Jr. <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:

....

my best guess at to what other people think. I'm just trying to show
that there's no inherent conflict between those people believing that
you are incompetent, and wanting a copy of your source code.

Yes. There is. Though maybe not on the surface. But if you scratch
underneath a little, it's pretty obvious.

I could see that there was a contradiction if they desired a copy of
the source code because they expect it to be competently written, and
they want to take advantage of that competence.

If they want the copy because they expect it to be incompetently
written, and they wish proof of that fact, then any contradiction is
too well buried for me to see it. I've scratched around underneath the
surface, as you suggested, and I can't find it. Could you elaborate on
the nature of the contradiction?

Fundamentally, behind the desire for the source code is a hope that if
it contains sufficiently clear evidence of his incompetence, Jacob
will either change his mind about the relevant issues, or be so
ashamed that he'll go away. That strikes me as wishful thinking. I
doubt that his code contains any evidence sufficiently clear to
achieve that effect.

Kelsey Bjarnason

[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This is the PROOF
that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the most popular C99
implementations in the world.

The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.

Kenny McCormack

In article <n7************@spanky.localhost.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:

>[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This is the PROOF
that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the most popular C99
implementations in the world.

The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.

For an amazingly large portion of the (world's) population, it IS.

Say what you will, but the fact is that ubiquity does count for
something.

Philip Potter

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <n7************@spanky.localhost.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrote:
>[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:26:32 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>>lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This is the PROOF
that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the most popular C99
implementations in the world.
The fact you've got a lot of copies out there doesn't really mean much;
by this argument, McDonald's is a gourmet restaurant.

For an amazingly large portion of the (world's) population, it IS.

Say what you will, but the fact is that ubiquity does count for
something.

You seem to have completely missed Kelsey's point. Jacob was saying that
lcc-win32 is quality because it has a large userbase. Kelsey was saying
that the same argument applies to McDonald's. But we know that McDonalds
is not quality - and even the people who use it recognise that it isn't
the Ritz or the Waldorf.

(I have never seen lcc-win32 for myself, I'm not going to say anything
about the quality of the compiler.)

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac.uk

Keith Thompson

Philip Potter <pg*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Kenny McCormack wrote:

[snip]

You seem to have completely missed Kelsey's point.

[...]

Please don't feed the troll.

--
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 Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:31:58 +0100, Philip Potter wrote:

(I have never seen lcc-win32 for myself, I'm not going to say anything
about the quality of the compiler.)

Likewise. For all I know, lcc-win32 is the best compiler in existence. I
was merely objecting to the argument that popular means good - "Eat dung,
after all, a trillion flies can't be wrong." :)

Kelsey Bjarnason

[snips]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:44:32 -0700, jameskuyper wrote:

That I agree in any way with someone else who has also posted here
doesn't make me a sock puppet, no matter how much you would prefer
that to be the case. Believe it or not, people can reach conclusions
which you disagree with, without any collusion, conspiracy, or
deception involved.

<Mode=Monty Python>
No they can't!
</Mode>

Good goat, if all it took to be a "sock puppet" was disagreeing with
someone, then we'd all be sock puppets - even Richard.

CBFalconer

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
If they want the copy because they expect it to be incompetently
written, and they wish proof of that fact, then any contradiction
is too well buried for me to see it. I've scratched around
underneath the surface, as you suggested, and I can't find it.
Could you elaborate on the nature of the contradiction?

Fundamentally, behind the desire for the source code is a hope
that if it contains sufficiently clear evidence of his
incompetence, Jacob will either change his mind about the relevant
issues, or be so ashamed that he'll go away. That strikes me as
wishful thinking. I doubt that his code contains any evidence
sufficiently clear to achieve that effect.

Please ignore McCormack. He is a known troll.

Jacob Navia obviously has good capabilities. He is sadly lacking
in knowledge of the actual facts about C, and even worse, he
refuses to learn. To him the computer world seems to consist of
X86's, (provided equipped with the Pentium designation) running
under some form of Winders, and lately some form of Linux.

--
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

Richard

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

ja*********@verizon.net wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
If they want the copy because they expect it to be incompetently
written, and they wish proof of that fact, then any contradiction
is too well buried for me to see it. I've scratched around
underneath the surface, as you suggested, and I can't find it.
Could you elaborate on the nature of the contradiction?

Fundamentally, behind the desire for the source code is a hope
that if it contains sufficiently clear evidence of his
incompetence, Jacob will either change his mind about the relevant
issues, or be so ashamed that he'll go away. That strikes me as
wishful thinking. I doubt that his code contains any evidence
sufficiently clear to achieve that effect.

Please ignore McCormack. He is a known troll.

Jacob Navia obviously has good capabilities. He is sadly lacking
in knowledge of the actual facts about C, and even worse, he

Guffaw. Time and time again your are plain wrong in your replies and are
corrected. To err is human, but to consider yourself elite is plain
laughable.

refuses to learn. To him the computer world seems to consist of
X86's, (provided equipped with the Pentium designation) running
under some form of Winders, and lately some form of Linux.

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

Spoon

CBFalconer wrote:

[...] the computer world seems to consist of X86's, (provided
equipped with the Pentium designation) [...]

Intel has dropped the Pentium brand. It's just 'Core' now,
e.g. Core 2 Quad Q6600.

GCC compiler error

This discussion thread is closed

Similar topics