 |
|
| Computers Forum Index » Computer Compilers - LCC » ANN An ansic90 version of lcc-win... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| jacob navia... |
 Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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.
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) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| luserXtrog... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 12:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 24, 4:00 pm, tea strainer <nos... at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tea strainer... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:41:14 +0200, jacob navia wrote:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Keith Thompson... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) nospam.org> writes:
Quote: 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?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u at (no spam) 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" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
Quote: In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Heathfield... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
Quote: jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) 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 at (no spam)
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
Quote: In <h9hise$3uu$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
Quote: In <h9hm6e$76t$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <h9hise$3uu$1 at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <rjh at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <lnbpl0yp99.fsf at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <jacob at (no spam) 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."
?
In clc terms, that statement is true.
Weasel words.
You have just sought another opportunity to shoot down Jacob's efforts.
--
Chris. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: 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.
+ 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick Keighley... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 25 Sep, 07:32, Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> wrote:
Quote: In <h9hn7k$84... at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <h9hm6e$76... at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <h9hise$3u... at (no spam) enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Chris McDonald wrote:
Richard Heathfield <r... at (no spam) see.sig.invalid> writes:
In <lnbpl0yp99.... at (no spam) nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja... at (no spam) 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."
?
In clc terms, that statement is true.
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick Keighley... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 25 Sep, 07:47, Chris McDonald <ch... at (no spam) csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
Quote: 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
Quote: Which of my statements, [below], is false?
Quote: + 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)
Quote: + 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
Quote: + You do not have that knowledge.
trueish. But disengenuous. he never claimed omniscience
Quote: + You then attempted to then back out of your definitive statement claiming
some special c.l.c. universe that makes your statement true.
false
Quote: + 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)
Quote: + 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
Quote: + I made no statement about Jacob's implementations,
true but no one said you did
Quote: 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
Quote: you sure you aren't Jacob you seem to have the same ability to think
Touche, but no!
Been typing long?
--
Chris. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris McDonald... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam at (no spam) hotmail.com> writes:
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick Keighley... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 25 Sep, 08:38, Chris McDonald <ch... at (no spam) csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
Quote: Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos... at (no spam) 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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT
The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:32 pm
|
|