Commandline compiler for windows?

[rufus]

Is there a C-compiler (and for that matter C++ compiler) for windows that
can be run from the commmand line?

[jacob navia]

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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

>Serve Lau wrote:

>>"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:g5**********@registered.motzarella.org...

[snip]

>>>Thus lcc-win32 can only be used, AFAICS, as an "almost conformant" C99
compiler.
I know its a novel idea but it can also be used to create programs
that get some work done

It has been my main objective

105 digits floating point precision with the 32 bit version, 135 with
the 64 bit version. and all the extras like debugger, resource editor,
project management, etc.

That is far from this sterile discussions about issuing a warning or
not when you see // comments.

I prefer giving to the user more power, and that is the objective of
this work.

Each to his/her own. I don't need 105 digit floats, but I would like
working (a) VLAs (b) compound literals (c) designated initialisers (d)
__VA_ARGS__ (e) standard type checking (c.f. the int/long issue). You
have chosen extensions over standard features which may be correct
from a business point of view, but for getting some work done it rules
out lcc-win32.

I propose then that you do not use my compiler!

It is as simple as that.

VLAs are working, as compound literals.

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

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

Serve Lau wrote:

>>
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comschreef in bericht
news:g5**********@registered.motzarella.org...

[snip]

>>Thus lcc-win32 can only be used, AFAICS, as an "almost conformant"
C99 compiler.

I know its a novel idea but it can also be used to create programs
that get some work done

It has been my main objective

105 digits floating point precision with the 32 bit version, 135 with
the 64 bit version. and all the extras like debugger, resource editor,
project management, etc.

That is far from this sterile discussions about issuing a warning or
not when you see // comments.

I prefer giving to the user more power, and that is the objective of
this work.

This is a laudable objective, but in that case you should IMHO be
accurate about what you say. There is no shame in admitting lcc-win
conforms to neither C90 or C99. It may still be useful for some people
(ex: those who want to write some Windows programs and don't need their
code to be portable outside Windows/lcc-win combination).

However nearly every serious compiler claims to conform to at least one
of C90 or C99, in most cases the former. Now I realise that the
internal design of lcc-win makes adding checks for strict C90
conformance impractical (or that you are unwilling to do so, which is
fine provided you don't claim lcc-win conforms to C90), but if you
would finish your implementation of C99, IMHO, you would have a far
better case to make for your compiler, and some objections to it that
have been raised here would become moot.

[jacob navia]

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

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

>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:49:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>>This is the kingdom of pedants, and my compiler is a good target for
them.

Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever seen int
s = 1 //* */2
-0;

?????

As I believe has been pointed out already, not reporting the syntax error
in

s = 1; // set s to 1

is a failure to conform to the C90 standard as well. That one _is_ likely
to be found in real code, and when the compiler is specifically told the
code is meant to be C90, the // comment is probably not intentional.

So is not reporting all the other C99-specific syntax errors like:

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)...

and

f((struct S){42, NULL});

More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Microsoft doesn't diagnose that either.

int and long are completely equivalent types under windows

You will get a diagnostic if (and only if) you set the highest
diagnostic level: lcc -A -A file.c
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>>More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

This is serious enough to reconsider using lcc-win (presumably the
paid version is internally the same) for professional use. Every
other compiler I tested the code under provides a diagnostic, even
when no switch explicitly enabling diagnostics is active.

Yes yes. But MSVC with the highest warning level doesn't
warn either. But you never say this to people recommending MSVC.

Whether MSVC does or not (I cannot tell, as I currently do not have
access to a Windows system), IMHO, you should, particularly if you
harbour any hopes of porting lcc-win to non-Windows systems.

One of the main purposes of using HLLs over a typeless language like
assembler is so that programmers can have their tools do this sort of
static checking. The lack of a diagnostic would be a very serious issue
under LP64 systems. I hope the 64 bit version of lcc-win doesn't have
this bug?

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

santosh wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>>>
More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

This is serious enough to reconsider using lcc-win (presumably the paid
version is internally the same) for professional use. Every other
compiler I tested the code under provides a diagnostic, even when no
switch explicitly enabling diagnostics is active.

Yes yes. But MSVC with the highest warning level doesn't
warn either.

You said that MSVC doesn't diagnose // comments and you were wrong. I
haven't tested passing int * to a function expected long * under MSVC for
the purposes of this discussion, but my expectation would be to find that
MSVC correctly diagnoses it. In short, I don't believe you.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:
[...]

>>More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Of course; that's a constraint violation in either C90 or C99.

If you know of a compiler that fails to diagnose this in conforming
mode, that's simply a bug, and it should be reported to the provider.
(I have no knowledge of whether any particular compiler fails in this
way. gcc issues a warning, not an error message, which is conforming
behavior.)

I question the relevance to this discussion.

MSVC doesn't warn either, even with the highest warning level

In an earlier reply I said I didn't believe you. Then I read two more
articles by you in which you made the same claim.

You are wrong. MSVC diagnoses this error properly when invoked in
conforming mode.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>>
More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Microsoft doesn't diagnose that either.

Wrong.

--
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

[jacob navia]

santosh wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>santosh wrote:

>>Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>>>More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.
This is serious enough to reconsider using lcc-win (presumably the
paid version is internally the same) for professional use. Every
other compiler I tested the code under provides a diagnostic, even
when no switch explicitly enabling diagnostics is active.

Yes yes. But MSVC with the highest warning level doesn't
warn either. But you never say this to people recommending MSVC.

Whether MSVC does or not (I cannot tell, as I currently do not have
access to a Windows system), IMHO, you should, particularly if you
harbour any hopes of porting lcc-win to non-Windows systems.

One of the main purposes of using HLLs over a typeless language like
assembler is so that programmers can have their tools do this sort of
static checking. The lack of a diagnostic would be a very serious issue
under LP64 systems. I hope the 64 bit version of lcc-win doesn't have
this bug?

The 64 bit version has sizeof(long) == sizeof(int) == 32 bits

Only the linux 64 bit version has sizeof(long) == sizeof( void *).

And in that version I do warn. Besides, if you call

lcc -A -A foo.c

there IS a diagnostic printed in ALL versions!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

>>Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:
[...]
More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.
Of course; that's a constraint violation in either C90 or C99.

If you know of a compiler that fails to diagnose this in conforming
mode, that's simply a bug, and it should be reported to the provider.
(I have no knowledge of whether any particular compiler fails in this
way. gcc issues a warning, not an error message, which is conforming
behavior.)

I question the relevance to this discussion.

MSVC doesn't warn either, even with the highest warning level

In an earlier reply I said I didn't believe you. Then I read two more
articles by you in which you made the same claim.

You are wrong. MSVC diagnoses this error properly when invoked in
conforming mode.

and lcc-win also.

lcc -A -A foo.c

will diagnostic this.

So, the situation is the same.

Well, back to the drawing board. You will surely find another pedant
mistake
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>Harald van D?k <tr*****@gmail.comwrites:

>>On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:49:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
This is the kingdom of pedants, and my compiler is a good target
for them.

Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever
seen int s = 1 //* */2
-0;

?????
As I believe has been pointed out already, not reporting the syntax
error in

s = 1; // set s to 1

is a failure to conform to the C90 standard as well. That one _is_
likely to be found in real code, and when the compiler is
specifically told the code is meant to be C90, the // comment is
probably not intentional.

So is not reporting all the other C99-specific syntax errors like:

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)...

and

f((struct S){42, NULL});

More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Microsoft doesn't diagnose that either.

int and long are completely equivalent types under windows

You will get a diagnostic if (and only if) you set the highest
diagnostic level: lcc -A -A file.c

This is a strange switch combination that, as far as I can tell, you
have *not* documented in your lcc-win manual. Now let me ask
preemptively, is there a special meaning for:

lcc -A -A -A file.c

:-)

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>santosh wrote:
Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>>>>More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:
>
void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }
>
as invalid.
This is serious enough to reconsider using lcc-win (presumably the
paid version is internally the same) for professional use. Every
other compiler I tested the code under provides a diagnostic, even
when no switch explicitly enabling diagnostics is active.

Yes yes. But MSVC with the highest warning level doesn't
warn either. But you never say this to people recommending MSVC.

Whether MSVC does or not (I cannot tell, as I currently do not have
access to a Windows system), IMHO, you should, particularly if you
harbour any hopes of porting lcc-win to non-Windows systems.

One of the main purposes of using HLLs over a typeless language like
assembler is so that programmers can have their tools do this sort of
static checking. The lack of a diagnostic would be a very serious
issue under LP64 systems. I hope the 64 bit version of lcc-win
doesn't have this bug?

The 64 bit version has sizeof(long) == sizeof(int) == 32 bits

Only the linux 64 bit version has sizeof(long) == sizeof( void *).

And in that version I do warn. Besides, if you call

lcc -A -A foo.c

there IS a diagnostic printed in ALL versions!

Please include a note of this switch combination in your manual. This
could have prevented all this discussion.

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

<snip>

I propose then that you do not use my compiler!

Wise advice.

It is as simple as that.

No, it's not so simple. You called people liars for telling the truth about
lcc-win. You might want to put that right.

VLAs are working, as compound literals.

How nice - if true.

--
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

[jacob navia]

santosh wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>>Harald van D?k <tr*****@gmail.comwrites:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:49:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
This is the kingdom of pedants, and my compiler is a good target
for them.
>
Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever
seen int s = 1 //* */2
-0;
>
?????
As I believe has been pointed out already, not reporting the syntax
error in

s = 1; // set s to 1

is a failure to conform to the C90 standard as well. That one _is_
likely to be found in real code, and when the compiler is
specifically told the code is meant to be C90, the // comment is
probably not intentional.
So is not reporting all the other C99-specific syntax errors like:

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)...

and

f((struct S){42, NULL});

More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Microsoft doesn't diagnose that either.

int and long are completely equivalent types under windows

You will get a diagnostic if (and only if) you set the highest
diagnostic level: lcc -A -A file.c

This is a strange switch combination that, as far as I can tell, you
have *not* documented in your lcc-win manual. Now let me ask
preemptively, is there a special meaning for:

lcc -A -A -A file.c

:-)

Even more pedantic diagnostics!

The -A -A combination is not documented because it tends
to produce too much output that is mostly useless
(pedantic warnings that *could* be useful in some
cases)

Levels are zero (no -A)
one (-A)
and two (-A -A)

I do not remember if I ever use the higher levels but it could
be.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>>Keith Thompson wrote:
Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:
[...]
More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:
>
void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }
>
as invalid.
Of course; that's a constraint violation in either C90 or C99.

If you know of a compiler that fails to diagnose this in conforming
mode, that's simply a bug, and it should be reported to the provider.
(I have no knowledge of whether any particular compiler fails in this
way. gcc issues a warning, not an error message, which is conforming
behavior.)

I question the relevance to this discussion.

MSVC doesn't warn either, even with the highest warning level

In an earlier reply I said I didn't believe you. Then I read two more
articles by you in which you made the same claim.

You are wrong. MSVC diagnoses this error properly when invoked in
conforming mode.

and lcc-win also.

lcc -A -A foo.c

will diagnostic this.

So, the situation is the same.

First, when someone points out that lcc-win doesn't diagnose this
construct, you reply that "MSVC doesn't warn either, even with the highest
warning level", which implies your acceptance that lcc-win doesn't
diagnose it. Then, when I point out that you're wrong about MSVC, you say
that lcc-win /does/ diagnose it. So you have directly contradicted your
own position. So why should I believe anything you say?

You continue to refuse to answer the questions about conformance claims. Is
it your claim that lcc-win conforms to C90? If you don't say yes, it will
not be unreasonable for people to assume you mean no. Likewise for C99.

Well, back to the drawing board. You will surely find another pedant
mistake

What makes you think I believe your claim?

--
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

[Joachim Schmitz]

jacob navia wrote:

santosh wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Harald van D?k <tr*****@gmail.comwrites:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:49:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
>This is the kingdom of pedants, and my compiler is a good target
>for them.
>>
>Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever
>seen int s = 1 //* */2
> -0;
>>
>?????
As I believe has been pointed out already, not reporting the
syntax error in
>
s = 1; // set s to 1
>
is a failure to conform to the C90 standard as well. That one _is_
likely to be found in real code, and when the compiler is
specifically told the code is meant to be C90, the // comment is
probably not intentional.
So is not reporting all the other C99-specific syntax errors like:

for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)...

and

f((struct S){42, NULL});

More seriously, I'd want any C compiler to diagnose:

void f(long *lp) { *lp = 0; }
int main(void) { int i; f(&i); return i; }

as invalid.

Microsoft doesn't diagnose that either.

int and long are completely equivalent types under windows

You will get a diagnostic if (and only if) you set the highest
diagnostic level: lcc -A -A file.c

This is a strange switch combination that, as far as I can tell, you
have *not* documented in your lcc-win manual. Now let me ask
preemptively, is there a special meaning for:

lcc -A -A -A file.c

:-)

Even more pedantic diagnostics!

The -A -A combination is not documented because it tends
to produce too much output that is mostly useless
(pedantic warnings that *could* be useful in some
cases)

Warnings about the above mentioned things are very usefull for portable
programming, i.e. if you do care for portability to various platforms, where
sizeof(int) != sizeof(long) and there's a multitude of these.
You just recently disabled your (undocumented?) "-pedantic" switch. I'd
recommend you re-enable it and make it behave like your undocumented "-A -A"
behaves currently. And document it. This will seriously reduce the push back
you're receiving here, so is in your own best interest.

Levels are zero (no -A)
one (-A)
and two (-A -A)

I do not remember if I ever use the higher levels but it could
be.

You'd better check... and you're the only one that can check.

Bye, Jojo

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]

and lcc-win also.

lcc -A -A foo.c

will diagnostic this.

So if you want to use lcc-win in conforming mode, you have to specify
"lcc -A -A".

Is that corrrect?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard Bos]

Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

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

Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever seen
int s = 1 //* */2
-0;

?????

Only in code deliberately designed to demonstrate this issue.

On the other hand, have you ever seen code that uses "restrict" as an
identifier? Or that uses the names of any of the other C99-specific
library routines that aren't reserved in C90?

No. However, I have not only seen, but written, code that uses "outfile"
and "infile" as identifiers for the FILE *s for output and input files
respectively, and for the corresponding line buffers, "outline" and...

If you don't care about C90, that's fine; nobody has said you should.
But then don't claim that lcc-win supports C90.

Quite; do what you want, but be honest about it.

Richard

[santosh]

Keith Thompson wrote:

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]

>and lcc-win also.

lcc -A -A foo.c

will diagnostic this.

So if you want to use lcc-win in conforming mode, you have to specify
"lcc -A -A".

Is that corrrect?

The -ansic switch too, to disallow extensions.

[Keith Thompson]

santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]

>>and lcc-win also.

lcc -A -A foo.c

will diagnostic this.

So if you want to use lcc-win in conforming mode, you have to specify
"lcc -A -A".

Is that corrrect?

The -ansic switch too, to disallow extensions.

Allowing extensions is non-conforming only if they affect the behavior
of strictly conforming code. But any syntax errors and constraint
violations must still be diagnosed. For example, allowing operator
overloading is ok in conforming mode as long as a warning is issued.

I'd like to hear *from jacob* how to invoke lcc-win in conforming
mode.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Richard]

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

rufus wrote:

>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.deskrev i en
meddelelse news:g5**********@online.de...

>>jacob navia wrote:
santosh wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>
>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>So win-lcc _is_ claiming conformance to C90 or C99? Which one
>>then? Or even both? Which which switches?
>C89 is supported
>
What is the switch to enforce conformance to C90?
>
<snip>
>

The C90 standard is no longer the current standard. But all
of C90 is supported as far as it doesn't contradict C99.

And no, I will NOT issue a warning for // comments. I stay
compatible with Microsoft C that doesn't warn either.
non-conformance to C89/C90, not even a bug, but a deliberate
decision. non-conformance to C99, as 'a few things are missing'

So who again was lying?

Bye, Jojo

Christ guys you seriously need to get laid!

Jacob keeps calling people liars and hypocrits without good reason. So this
thread shows once again that he's a liar and hypocrit himself.

Bye, Jojo

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

[Ben Bacarisse]

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

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>Each to his/her own. I don't need 105 digit floats, but I would like
working (a) VLAs (b) compound literals (c) designated initialisers (d)
__VA_ARGS__ (e) standard type checking (c.f. the int/long issue). You
have chosen extensions over standard features which may be correct
from a business point of view, but for getting some work done it rules
out lcc-win32.

I propose then that you do not use my compiler!

I don't. I thought you would want to hear about bugs, but I will
happily not report them to you if you prefer.

VLAs are working, as compound literals.

I posted a message on comp.compilers.lcc about VLAs[1]. I seem to
remember posting again about it here[2]. For all I know, I have
misunderstood the issue, but it looked like a bug to me.

Last time I looked there were issues with compound literals. Your
revision notes don't document any recent changes relating to compound
literals.

I not the long/int issue if fixable with an extra -A but that is not
documented as far as I can see.

[1] Message-ID: <87************@bsb.me.uk>
[2] Message-ID: <87************@bsb.me.uk>

--
Ben.

[Joachim Schmitz]

Richard wrote:

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

Bye, Jojo

[santosh]

Richard wrote:

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

>rufus wrote:

>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.deskrev i en
meddelelse news:g5**********@online.de...
jacob navia wrote:
santosh wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>So win-lcc _is_ claiming conformance to C90 or C99? Which one
>>>then? Or even both? Which which switches?
>>C89 is supported
>>
>What is the switch to enforce conformance to C90?
>>
><snip>
>>
>
The C90 standard is no longer the current standard. But all
of C90 is supported as far as it doesn't contradict C99.
>
And no, I will NOT issue a warning for // comments. I stay
compatible with Microsoft C that doesn't warn either.
non-conformance to C89/C90, not even a bug, but a deliberate
decision. non-conformance to C99, as 'a few things are missing'

So who again was lying?

Bye, Jojo
Christ guys you seriously need to get laid!

Jacob keeps calling people liars and hypocrits without good reason.
So this thread shows once again that he's a liar and hypocrit
himself.

Bye, Jojo

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

This doesn't necessarily imply anything, since I have seen the same
thing with others elsewhere on Usenet. I think it's a "bug" with
Outlook Express (what's new?).

[Richard Bos]

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:

Richard wrote:

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

Because it's easier to read with the blank line.

Richard

[Joachim Schmitz]

santosh wrote:

Richard wrote:

>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

>>rufus wrote:
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.deskrev i en
meddelelse news:g5**********@online.de...
jacob navia wrote:
>santosh wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
>>>
>>>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>>So win-lcc _is_ claiming conformance to C90 or C99? Which one
>>>>then? Or even both? Which which switches?
>>>C89 is supported
>>>
>>What is the switch to enforce conformance to C90?
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>
>The C90 standard is no longer the current standard. But all
>of C90 is supported as far as it doesn't contradict C99.
>>
>And no, I will NOT issue a warning for // comments. I stay
>compatible with Microsoft C that doesn't warn either.
non-conformance to C89/C90, not even a bug, but a deliberate
decision. non-conformance to C99, as 'a few things are missing'
>
So who again was lying?
>
Bye, Jojo
Christ guys you seriously need to get laid!
Jacob keeps calling people liars and hypocrits without good reason.
So this thread shows once again that he's a liar and hypocrit
himself.

Bye, Jojo

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

This doesn't necessarily imply anything, since I have seen the same

What should it imply then?

thing with others elsewhere on Usenet. I think it's a "bug" with
Outlook Express (what's new?).

Don't think so (also I'm using OE-QuoteFix, so it must have that "bug" too),
I insert my text and elect to not add an empty line before, but only after
my text

Bye, Jojo

[Richard]

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

Richard wrote:

>Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

Calling you a sycophant is not being abusive. It's reporting a fact :
your attempts at sucking up to Heathfield are, quite frankly,
embarrassing. You rarely pass up on opportunity to belittle someone or
to talk down in general.

>

>leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

Bye, Jojo

Because it's easier to read.

[Joachim Schmitz]

Richard wrote:

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

>Richard wrote:

>>Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

Calling you a sycophant is not being abusive. It's reporting a fact :
your attempts at sucking up to Heathfield are, quite frankly,
embarrassing. You rarely pass up on opportunity to belittle someone or
to talk down in general.

>>

>>leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

Bye, Jojo

Because it's easier to read.

So you must be a sycophant to Richard Bos then (as he wrote the same just a
couple minutes earlier), right?

The fact that 2 or more persons agree on certain things, doesn't make them
sycophants to one other.

Bye, Jojo

[santosh]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

santosh wrote:

>Richard wrote:

>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
rufus wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>Christ guys you seriously need to get laid!
Jacob keeps calling people liars and hypocrits without good reason.
So this thread shows once again that he's a liar and hypocrit
himself.

>>Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

This doesn't necessarily imply anything, since I have seen the same

What should it imply then?

You need to ask Richard that. He was the one who seem to suggest that
there was something more than coincidence to the fact that you and
vippstar both do not leave a newline between quoted text and your
replies.

>thing with others elsewhere on Usenet. I think it's a "bug" with
Outlook Express (what's new?).

Don't think so (also I'm using OE-QuoteFix, so it must have that "bug"
too), I insert my text and elect to not add an empty line before, but
only after my text

An empty line between quotes and replies increases clarity, just like an
empty line between variable declarations and statements in a C
function. IMHO, YMMV.

[Richard]

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

Richard wrote:

>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:

>>Richard wrote:
Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
You can't do without being abusive, can you?

Calling you a sycophant is not being abusive. It's reporting a fact :
your attempts at sucking up to Heathfield are, quite frankly,
embarrassing. You rarely pass up on opportunity to belittle someone or
to talk down in general.

>>>
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?
I wonder why I should?

Bye, Jojo

Because it's easier to read.

So you must be a sycophant to Richard Bos then (as he wrote the same just a
couple minutes earlier), right?

The fact that 2 or more persons agree on certain things, doesn't make them
sycophants to one other.

Bye, Jojo

Correct. But constant referral and kowtowing does.

[Richard Heathfield]

Joachim Schmitz said:

<snip>

I insert my text and elect to not add an empty line before, but
only after my text

A good technical writer strives to save effort for his readers rather than
for himself. It is true that it takes a little extra time, thought, and
care to write in a way that is easy to read, but your readers will thank
you for it.

When you fail to put whitespace between the quoted text and your reply, it
doesn't make it impossible to understand who wrote what (provided the
quote markers are properly used), but it makes the task more awkward for
the reader than it need be.

For the sake of one extra keystroke per paragraph, you could make life
easier for your readers. I urge you to consider it.

--
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

[vippstar]

On Jul 14, 6:49 pm, santosh <[e-mail]:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

santosh wrote:

Richard wrote:

<snip>

>Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to
leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

This doesn't necessarily imply anything, since I have seen the same

What should it imply then?

You need to ask Richard that. He was the one who seem to suggest that
there was something more than coincidence to the fact that you and
vippstar both do not leave a newline between quoted text and your
replies.

I did not know that it's annoying for others to read. I won't repeat
this.
I use google groups (I know...) which doesn't automatically insert a
newline.
Mr Schmitz is wasting his time replying to the troll, and apparently
I'm wasting mine advicing him not to.

thing with others elsewhere on Usenet. I think it's a "bug" with
Outlook Express (what's new?).

Don't think so (also I'm using OE-QuoteFix, so it must have that "bug"
too), I insert my text and elect to not add an empty line before, but
only after my text

An empty line between quotes and replies increases clarity, just like an
empty line between variable declarations and statements in a C
function. IMHO, YMMV.

Agreed. I will do that from now on.

[Default User]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Richard wrote:

Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

While Riley is generally a troll, he does have a point in this
instance. Your comments tend to run into the quoted block, sometimes
requiring a second look to spot the indent levels.

It would be nice if you separated them better.


Brian

[Joachim Schmitz]

Default User wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>Richard wrote:

>>Interestingly you, like your fellow sycophant Vippstar, both fail to

You can't do without being abusive, can you?

>>leave white space after a quoted block. I wonder why?

I wonder why I should?

While Riley is generally a troll, he does have a point in this
instance. Your comments tend to run into the quoted block, sometimes
requiring a second look to spot the indent levels.

It would be nice if you separated them better.

Point taken and I'll try to change that.

Bye, Jojo

[Joachim Schmitz]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Joachim Schmitz said:

<snip>

>I insert my text and elect to not add an empty line before, but
only after my text

A good technical writer strives to save effort for his readers rather
than for himself. It is true that it takes a little extra time,
thought, and care to write in a way that is easy to read, but your
readers will thank you for it.

When you fail to put whitespace between the quoted text and your
reply, it doesn't make it impossible to understand who wrote what
(provided the quote markers are properly used), but it makes the task
more awkward for the reader than it need be.

For the sake of one extra keystroke per paragraph, you could make life
easier for your readers. I urge you to consider it.

I did. But somehow it matters who says something, but even more importantly
how (s)he say it and whether it is explained properly. Just-Richard didn't
explain nor ask nicely, several others did do a much better job here and
convinced me.

Bye, Jojo

[lawrence.jones]

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

>
Note the kind of "bugs" presented here. Where have anybody ever seen
int s = 1 //* */2
-0;

I *have* seen real, whitespace challenged, code along the lines of:

int i=1//*magic number here*/42;

That almost certainly results in a syntax error when compiled with //
comments, so at least you know there's a problem. But all it takes is
for the expression to be long and continued onto the next line in an
unfortunate manner to end up in the same situation as the original
example where the code compiles without any indication whatsoever that
there may be something wrong but computes a completely incorrect value.
--
Larry Jones

Nobody knows how to pamper like a Mom. -- Calvin

[Jens Thoms Toerring]

Joachim Schmitz <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote:

Default User wrote:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
It would be nice if you separated them better.

Point taken and I'll try to change that.

Thanks, that will be easier for my not-too-sharp eyes and I will
enjoy your posts even more;-)
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ [e-mail]
\__________________________ http://toerring.de

[CBFalconer]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Default User wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>While Riley is generally a troll, he does have a point in this
instance. Your comments tend to run into the quoted block,
sometimes requiring a second look to spot the indent levels.

It would be nice if you separated them better.

Point taken and I'll try to change that.

Thanks. That helps.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[David Thompson]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:26:16 +0530, santosh <sa*********@gmail.com>
wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

You will get a diagnostic if (and only if) you set the highest
diagnostic level: lcc -A -A file.c

This is a strange switch combination that, as far as I can tell, you
have *not* documented in your lcc-win manual. Now let me ask
preemptively, is there a special meaning for:

lcc -A -A -A file.c

:-)

IMQAO, that would be a very suitable syntax for enabling trigraphs.

:-)) !

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