ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win
jacob navia
This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
Usage:
lc -ansic90 foo.c
The "driver" lc.exe will call lcc90.exe with the appropiate
options.
Note that the latest download of lcc-win has several new executables:
lcc90.exe C90 compiler
lcclnk90.exe linker
Note that there is no optimizer, no long longs, long doubles are
the same size of doubles, no extensions etc.
This compiler emits tons of warnings since for instance assignment of
an unsigned char * to a char * is not well seen...
The only thing that was already there is the _stdcall feature. This
feature will be recognized only at the *global* level, i.e. you can
write
int fn(void)
{
int _stdcall = 56;
}
Compilation of windows headers is problematic, probably because they use
anonymous unions, long long, and other goodies.
This version is not a toy compiler however. It is able to compile
itself, and the resulting executable has 30-40% of the speed of
a program compiled with the C99 version of lcc-win.
The library used is CRTDLL.DLL, what implies that there is a C90
printf, and all other functions of the C90 standard library.
This means also that programs link with a dynamic library and
are therefore smaller than equivalent programs with lcc-win.
(Several dozen Kb)
tea strainer
> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
>
> This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
> from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
> to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
the day.
I hope that in the next few months, you will be back-porting recent
optimizations etc. from the current lccwin32 to this Standards Compliant
version.
luserXtrog
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:41:14 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> > Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
>
> > This version has none of C99 since it is a backup version of lcc-win
> > from September 1999. The new C standard was just out, or was going
> > to get out, so lcc-win was at the then current standard level 1989.
>
> Good news, though this interest in ISO standards has come a bit late in
> the day.
But earlier than tomorrow!
--
edgewordwise
Keith Thompson
> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
Great!
Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
--
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 Heathfield
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>> lcc-win.
> [snip]
>
> Great!
>
> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Chris McDonald
>In <lnbpl0y...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>>> lcc-win.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,
so it is not unreasonable to believe him.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
That's precisely why I said "may".
> so it is not unreasonable to believe him.
I have seen him mess up often enough that I have learned not to take
what he says at face value.
Chris McDonald
>In <h9hise$3uu$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>In <lnbpl0y...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>>>>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of
>>>>> lcc-win.
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Great!
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
>>
>>>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
>>>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
>>>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
>>>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
>>
>> We have no idea how many requests Jacob receives outside of c.l.c.,
>That's precisely why I said "may".
Then why did you definitively state
"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however."
?
Do you read Jacob's email?
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
In clc terms, that statement is true.
> Do you read Jacob's email?
No. That's why I said "may".
Chris McDonald
Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's efforts.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
about either me or those implementations.
Chris McDonald
>the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
>point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
>Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
>about either me or those implementations.
Richard, off your high horse.
+ You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software.
+ You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
requests that he received.
+ You do not have that knowledge.
+ You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
+ There is no such universe.
+ I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
+ I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any statement
that you have attacked them.
Which of my statements, above, is false?
Good luck.
--
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
>>Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
>>on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
>>the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
>>Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
>>does about either me or those implementations.
>
>
> Richard, off your high horse.
Stick to the facts.
>
> + You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
> supporting version of his software.
No, I did not say anything of the kind.
> + You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
> requests that he received.
No, I did not.
> + You do not have that knowledge.
Right. And I'm bright enough to know that, and you should be bright
enough to know that I'm bright enough to know that. If you're not
that bright, that's your problem, not mine.
> + You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement
> claiming
> some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
No, you read more into my original statement than was there. That's
your problem, not mine.
> + There is no such universe.
There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
brain takes him seriously.
> + I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
> contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
Your screwups are your problem.
> + I made no statement about Jacob's implementations, nor any
> statement that you have attacked them.
You wrote: "You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down
Jacob's efforts." To what efforts were you referring, if not his
implementations? And how do you explain "shoot down" if you are
trying to maintain that it doesn't mean "attack"?
> Which of my statements, above, is false?
1) "You clearly stated..." - FALSE
2) "You stated this as if..." - FALSE
3) "You do not have that knowledge." - TRUE, and I never claimed to
have it.
4) "You then attempted..." - FALSE
5) "There is no such universe." - Mu. I made no claim that a
comp.lang.c universe exists. I do make the claim that a comp.lang.c
community exists.
6) "I stated that..." - TRUE, you did indeed make that statement, but
it was a false statement.
7) "I made no statement about..." - FALSE
So four of your statements were false, two were true (one of which
referred to a previous false statement), and one was based on a false
assumption and therefore meaningless.
> Good luck.
Why would I need good luck? I'm not the one who screwed up.
jacob navia
>
> There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> brain takes him seriously.
>
Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
Nick Keighley
> In <h9hn7k$84...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>
> >>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>
> >>>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.
Nick Keighley
> >Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on
> >the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing the
> >point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on Jacob
> >Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it does
> >about either me or those implementations.
>
> Richard, off your high horse.
good start
I've rearranged your post slightly
> Which of my statements, [below], is false?
> + You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
> supporting version of his software.
false (there was a "may" in the initial statement)
> + You stated this as if you had full knowledge of all (if any)
> requests that he received.
false. We all make statements based on the knowledge available to us.
clc seems a reasonable forum to judge someone by
> + You do not have that knowledge.
trueish. But disengenuous. he never claimed omniscience
> + You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
> some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
false
> + There is no such universe.
how do you know? (philosopically I don't believe in alternate
universes
but it has yet to be conclusivly demonstrated that they don't exist)
> + I stated that you took the opportunity to attempt to falsely
> contradict Jacob's efforts to announce his software.
it is true that you said that, but it was a false statement
> + I made no statement about Jacob's implementations,
true but no one said you did
> nor any statement that you have attacked them.
false
you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
you
persecuted
Richard Heathfield
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
>>
>> There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community,
>> it is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that
>> lcc-win32 be made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such
>> requests I remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and
>> nobody with a brain takes him seriously.
>>
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms
> to no standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
// comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
of fact. You have now announced a version that does diagnose these
comments.
> Now, I have developed a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi
> C90.
Not quite, but I know what you mean. ANSI C is often abbrev'd to C89.
C90 was an ISO Standard. (Since it's word-for-word identical in all
the relevant bits, confusing them is IMHO no big deal, but it does
bear pointing out even so.)
> Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
Words fail me. All I said was that there is little evidence in
comp.lang.c of demand for a C90-conforming version of lcc-win32. I
still think that's true. (And it's rightly true, since expression of
such demand would not be topical in comp.lang.c.) To assess the level
of demand for such an implementation, the best place to read would be
comp.compilers.lcc (to which I note that this thread has been
crossposted).
> Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms
> to C90.
Why would I do that? I already have several C90 compilers, and your
implementation doesn't fill any gaps for me.
> You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
I'm delighted to hear it. I hope it's true, and certainly I have no
evidence to the contrary at present.
Richard Heathfield
<1aea5649-5f27-41f0...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 07:32, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> In <h9hn7k$84...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> > Weasel words.
>> > You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's
>> > efforts.
>>
>> Rubbish. In this thread I have not expressed any opinion whatsoever
>> on the technical merits of his implementation(s). I was addressing
>> the point that Keith made. If you interpret that as an attack on
>> Jacob Navia's implementations, it says a lot more about you than it
>> does about either me or those implementations.
>
> that's how I read what you wrote. Jacob can miss some subtlties.
In this case, it was Chris McDonald who missed some obviosities.
Chris McDonald
Richard H,
I was wrong when stating
"You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a C90
supporting version of his software."
For that misquote I apologize.
You did state:
"Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very few..."
I was wong.
However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob has received,
as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.
Good luck,
--
Chris.
Chris McDonald
>you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
Touche, but no!
>you
>persecuted
Been typing long?
--
Chris.
Chris McDonald
>you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
>you
>persecuted
OK, enough of this banter based on my inability to read.
Edward's back with a news update on Schildt.....
-
Chris.
Richard Heathfield
>
> Richard H,
>
> I was wrong when stating
>
> "You clearly stated that Jacob had received no requests for a
> C90 supporting version of his software."
>
> For that misquote I apologize.
Well said.
> You did state:
>
> "Many people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to
> C90. Very few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
Yes.
>
> So, you did not state "...no people...", but you did state "...very
> few..." I was wong.
Yes. And of course my "universe of discourse" (or rather, my community
of discourse) was this newsgroup. Obviously I have no knowledge of
the level of demand expressed privately to Jacob Navia via, say,
email or snailmail or fax or telephone or Instant Messenger or
carrier pigeon or semaphore or coded messages hidden in the flight
paths of butterflies.
> However, you remain ignorant of just how many such requests Jacob
> has received,
Yes. See above.
> as there really is a universe outside of c.l.c.
The universe /includes/ clc. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
recognise the existence of distinct communities within any given
universe.
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
>
> Touche, but no!
>
> >you
> >persecuted
>
> Been typing long?
yes, but badly
Caesar Romano
<ch...@csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote Re Re: ANN An ansic90 version of
lcc-win:
None IMO.
--
I filter all messages from google groups.
Dik T. Winter
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
> > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> > brain takes him seriously.
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
You are confusing "stating that a compiler does not conform to some
standard" with "request to make the compiler conform to some standard".
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Dik T. Winter
...
> >>>I think Jacob may be confusing "point out that X is not Y" with
> >>>"express a desire for X to be Y". The two are very different. Many
> >>>people have pointed out that lcc-win32 does not conform to C90. Very
> >>>few have expressed a desire for it to do so, however.
Note the above, and see that when you read a later follow-up by Jacob you
will find that Richard is right.
Keith Thompson
> jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>> Due to popular demand, I have prepared a ANSI-C-90 version of lcc-win.
> [snip]
>
> Great!
>
> Just out of curiosity, what "popular demand" are you referring to?
jacob, I regret that this simple question led to a flame war.
Everyone else: Here's an idea. If poster A asks a question
directed at poster B, particularly if it's a question that only
poster B is in a position to answer definitively, let's sit back
for a while and give poster B a chance to answer it before jumping
in with speculation about how poster B *might* respond given his
past history and/or how we think he *should* respond.
jacob, I'm still interested in knowing what "popular demand" you're
referring to. I do have some thoughts about what you might mean,
but I'll keep them to myself until I see what you have to say.
You've posted one response in this thread, but it didn't seem to be
an answer to my question; if it was intended to be, please say so.
If the phrase "Due to popular demand" wasn't meant to be taken
seriously, I'd be interested in knowing that as well.
jameskuyper
> Richard Heathfield a �crit :
> >
> > There is a comp.lang.c community of subscribers. In that community, it
> > is astonishingly rare to see an article requesting that lcc-win32 be
> > made to conform with C90, and in fact the *only* such requests I
> > remember seeing have been by the teapot troll, and nobody with a
> > brain takes him seriously.
> >
>
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments.
True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern. My own
interest in the issue has solely been about the accuracy of
conformance claims.
Kenny McCormack
What you say is, on the surface, true. However, no one really believes it.
No one seriously believes that when Dicky talks to (or, more likely, about)
Jacob, there is any intent other than character assasination.
Points:
1) Teabag is almost certainly a Dicky sock puppet.
2) I will grant that I don't believe for a second (nor should
anyone so believe) that Dicky and/or Kiki (hereinafter: DK)
really give a hoot whether or not Jacob's compiler complies with
any standard. It's not like either one of them is ever going to
use it. I.e., I don't see why anyone outside of Jacob's
userbase should give a hoot. I also don't see why anyone inside
of Jacob's userbase should care either - but that is another
thread.
3) However, that said, it is then hard to interpret their constant
nagging about his supposed non-compliance as anything other than
bullying and/or character assasination. Otherwise, why should
they care? Why should they bother?
4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
bothers posting here.
jacob navia
> 4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
> opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
> bothers posting here.
>
Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
participating.
I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
they do not think like the "regulars" group.
So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Richard Heathfield
> Kenny McCormack a �crit :
>> 4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
>> opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
>> bothers posting here.
>>
>
> Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
FWIW, the troll is either intentionally or inadvertently mistaken.
Nobody here (except the teapot idiot and also, it has to be said,
Herbert Rosenau) is trying to attack you.
> But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
> that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
> participating.
Reading /is/ participating (but I know what you mean). And of course
it is a good idea for anyone reading this forum, whether they post
here or not, to get a balanced view. Your best strategy would be to
assume that they are intelligent, and not easily fooled by irrational
or emotional arguments.
> I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
> they do not think like the "regulars" group.
The lurkers support me in email
They all think I'm great don't you know.
You posters just don't understand me
But soon you will reap what you sow.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
Oh it's true, and you know they support me.
There's thousands of lurkers out there!
They all understand my intentions
you posters are not being fair!
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
The lurkers support me in email
"So why don't they post?" you all cry
They're scared of your hostile intentions
they're not as courageous as I.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
One day I'll round up all my lurkers
we'll have a newsgroup of our own
without all this flak from you morons
my lurkers will post round my throne.
Lurkers, lurkers, lurkers support me, you'll see, you'll see
off in e-mail the lurkers support me, you'll see.
---- Jo Walton
> So, I try to make my viewpoint continue.
And when your viewpoint conflicts with the known facts, you can expect
to attract criticism of that viewpoint. The ability to benefit from
criticism is a hard skill to acquire, but it's a vital one.
> There is NO reason to
> leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Neither is there any reason to insult the regular contributors to this
group by claiming (wrongly) that they are "destroying" this forum.
Caesar Romano
wrote Re Re: ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win:
>But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
>that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
>participating.
I'm one of those people.
>
>I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
>they do not think like the "regulars" group.
Count me in that group.
>
>So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
>leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Good for you. However, if you do get disgusted enough, try a forming a
Yahoo Group wherein you can control the group membership. I would be
an enthusiastic supporter of such a move.
Rui Maciel
> Mr Heathfield, you have *repeatedly* stated that "lcc-win conforms to no
> standard" because I failed to reject // comments. Now, I have developed
> a version of lcc-win that conforms to ansi C90.
>
> Obviously that is not enough for you. Nothing will be ever enough.
>
> Now, try the version I presented, and you will see that it conforms to
> C90. You can't say any longer that lcc-win conforms to "no standard".
It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
motives, such as the need to ensure interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite. Do you actually believe that all this
passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
Rui Maciel
Malcolm McLean
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> I have indeed repeatedly stated that lcc-win32's failure to diagnose
> // comments rendered it non-conforming to C90. That is not an attack.
> Neither is it a request for a modification. Rather, it is a statement
> of fact.
>
style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request for modification.
Rather it is a statement of fact.
True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it that way?
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson
It is not a statement of fact.
First, I dispute the accuracy of the phrase "widely hated".
There are some people who dislike him, but I believe there are more
who do not. I don't know that anyone actually hates him, though
perhaps there are some who do. We could have a lengthy argument
about the exact meanings of "widely" and "hated", and it would never
reach any meaningful conclusion, so let's not. The phrase is vague,
and to my understanding of its meaning, it is false.
Second, "pomposity of style" is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
I do not dispute that some people find his style pompous, but again,
there is no object standard for pomposity.
As for your odd claim that this is "not an attack", you deliberately
chose words that would normally be considered insulting. I suppose
you did so for the purpose of making a point. Since your point is
wrong, I won't comment further on whether it's an attack.
On the other hand, lcc-win32's lack of a diagnostic for // comments
quite simply does render it non-conforming to C90. This is not
merely an opinion, it is a simple fact about which there can, as far
as I can tell, be no reasonable disagreement. I could cite several
sections of the C90 standard which, taken together, demonstrate
that a conforming C90 compiler must issue a diagnostic for a //
comment (except in the rare and contrived cases where a C99 //
comment is legal, but not a comment, in C90), but I don't think
that's actually necessary.
So here are the facts.
Prior to jacob's recent announcement of a C90-conforming version of
lcc-win32, lcc-win32 did not diagnose // comments, and therefore did
not conform to the C90 standard. (Note that "conform" is synonymous
to "fully conform".) Richard pointed this out on several occasions.
Richard has never, as far as I recall, suggested that lcc-win32
*should* conform to C90.
This. Is. Not. An. Attack.
So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
Nick Keighley
Richard Heathfield
> "Malcolm McLean" <regn...@btinternet.com> writes:
<snip>
>> Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
>> pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
>> for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.
>>
>> True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
>> that way?
>
> It is not a statement of fact.
You have been trolled. It's a forgery. Malcolm isn't that dense.
<snip>
Keith Thompson
> In <lnab0gw...@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "Malcolm McLean" <regn...@btinternet.com> writes:
> <snip>
>
>>> Mr Heathfield is widely hated on this newsgroup because of his
>>> pomposity of style. This is not an attack. Neither is it a request
>>> for modification. Rather it is a statement of fact.
>>>
>>> True, as you and I know full well. But would everyone else see it
>>> that way?
>>
>> It is not a statement of fact.
>
> You have been trolled. It's a forgery. Malcolm isn't that dense.
>
> <snip>
I hope you're right, but the headers seem to be consistent with at
least one of Malcolm's previous articles. I'll reserve judgement
until Malcolm comments.