On 03/11/2020 16:00, Paul Kosinski via clamav-users wrote:
"(don't you love C?)"
I have never understood why the originators of C didn't give integers
explicit widths in bits: their scheme made C code often non-portable.
Because C is intended to be very, very close to the machine
architecture, only a step or tow above assembler, or doing the
bit-twiddling by hand.
When I wrote code in the mid 1990s for the DEC Alpha, ints were 32 bits
while longs were 64 (unlike "standard" C). This made Alpha C code not
portable to lesser CPUs. On the other hand, when I wrote C on DOS for
the IBM PC in the late 1980s, ints were only 8 bits! It took some time
to figure out why my C-compliant code failed so badly. In spite of all
that, having started programming before C was invented, I can safely
say that C is better than its predecessors for software like ClamAV.
Uh, not a good example, I've written C code that is still in use on
everything from 80286s (yes, Virginia, there are people who keep them
alive, not just because they're cheap, sometimes just because they
*can*) to DEC Alphas and Power and SPARC64 and PA-RISC, it's just a
matter of knowing what you are doing, and sticking to it...
P.S. Good code these days tends to use typedefs defining things like
int32, uint64 etc. A shame the original ClamAV coders didn't do that.
And none of this has *anything* to do with the original problem - seeing
0 when the value is 0.0000000001, or so.
This is a display problem, not a storage problem. You could declare
something as PIC(9999999.99999999999999) and you will still only see 0
if you told it to display two decimal places.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
_______________________________________________
clamav-users mailing list
clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
