--- Comment #59 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 17:10 ---
(In reply to comment #58)
>
> (is Chris your friend?)
Of course not. I have no idea who he is.
> > Are you confusing me with Michael? I've not said anything about LDT.
>
> Yes I am. I'm sorry for that, I really a
--- Comment #58 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-14 16:02 ---
Why?? Why do you keep calling me back?? I was just going out and I heard the
new e-mail sound! Now I'm going to be late!!
(In reply to comment #57)
> Good way to make a convincing argument. You've tried to turn this i
--- Comment #57 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 15:09 ---
(In reply to comment #55)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > Look at the page history, it was removed by someone else, probably because
> > your
> > comment is badly written and not suitable for the Wikipedia page.
>
>
--- Comment #56 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-14 14:34 ---
(In reply to comment #54)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > GCC compiles that fine, try it.
> Sorry, I forgot my manners, what I meant is...
> Why don't you think before shooting off some crap.
> So I have shown you talk c
--- Comment #55 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-14 14:31 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #52)
> > (In reply to comment #51)
> Look at the page history, it was removed by someone else, probably because
> your
> comment is badly written and not suitable for the
--- Comment #54 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 14:25 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> GCC compiles that fine, try it.
Sorry, I forgot my manners, what I meant is...
Why don't you think before shooting off some crap.
So I have shown you talk crap. Do you like it?
Better get
--- Comment #53 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 13:55 ---
(In reply to comment #52)
> (In reply to comment #51)
> > > There you go, you are now famous.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Criticism
>
>
> Why did you remove the post? Do you think somet
--- Comment #52 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-14 13:17 ---
Do you really want me to go away? You are not using the right formula for that.
You know I have a problem and I can't resist. Everytime you post a message
you're just calling me back!
(In reply to comment #49)
>You'r
--- Comment #51 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-14 01:26 ---
> There you go, you are now famous.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Criticism
Thank you, that's encouraging, I just hope the language of that article won't
be changed too much to also mention ev
--- Comment #50 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 22:40 ---
Oh, and if you do get people to understand that pointer arithmetic is not
always well-defined, that would be a good thing. There are other people who
share you're incorrect understanding of the C and C++ languages, so
--- Comment #49 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 22:38 ---
Please, start a blog and write your views somewhere else. PLEASE.
You're rude, ignorant and annoying.
(In reply to comment #48)
> of why it is important to be able to initialize classes as function
> parameters
You
--- Comment #48 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 21:16 ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> OK, here is the deal:
> Since you want this feature so much, I'm sure that everybody would gladly
> implement it for you, for - say - measly 5000 EUR. You can then offer this
> c-like compiler
--- Comment #47 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-08-13 18:00 ---
OK, here is the deal:
Since you want this feature so much, I'm sure that everybody would gladly
implement it for you, for - say - measly 5000 EUR. You can then offer this
c-like compiler to the world and save the planet.
--- Comment #46 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 16:42 ---
(In reply to comment #45)
> Congratulations. Are you done now?
> What else are you hoping to achieve?
> Is this a cry for attention?
No much really. Now it is all up to the community. I just want everyone to know
that
--- Comment #45 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 16:32 ---
Congratulations. Are you done now?
What else are you hoping to achieve?
Is this a cry for attention?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
--- Comment #44 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 16:30 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> > char* p1=(char*)0x3000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> > sense"
> > char* p2=(char*)0x4000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> > sense"
> >
> > Can
--- Comment #43 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 16:28 ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> You should really adjust your glasses if you want to continue trolling with
> the high standards we're used to meanwhile:
> > > What in the words "real segmentation like on 286, where there's
--- Comment #42 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 15:25 ---
> > [ ] Yes
> > [x] No
>
> Thanks. The comunity will be alerted to this. I'll get back to you when
> your name is in some famous place associated with this claim.
That's very good. Though I'm a bit confused because
--- Comment #41 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 15:18 ---
You should really adjust your glasses if you want to continue trolling with
the high standards we're used to meanwhile:
> > What in the words "real segmentation like on 286, where there's no linear
> > relationship be
--- Comment #40 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 14:53 ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (In reply to comment #36)
> > I'm not sure you realize just how true that is. But keep going, you're
> > by far one of the best trolls I've seen in GCC land.
> Well, I can easily imagine more
--- Comment #39 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 14:48 ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> > char* p1=(char*)0x3000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> > sense"
> > char* p2=(char*)0x4000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> > sense"
> >
> > Can
--- Comment #38 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 14:47 ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > > If you include real segmentation
> > > like on 80286, where there's no linear relationship between effective
> > > address and segment+offset, subtraction would have been prohibitively
> >
--- Comment #37 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-08-13 13:31
---
(In reply to comment #36)
> I'm not sure you realize just how true that is. But keep going, you're
> by far one of the best trolls I've seen in GCC land.
Well, I can easily imagine more funny things to do, s
--- Comment #36 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 13:14 ---
> > If you include real segmentation
> > like on 80286, where there's no linear relationship between effective
> > address and segment+offset, subtraction would have been prohibitively
> > expensive to implement anyway
--- Comment #35 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-13 13:00 ---
> char* p1=(char*)0x3000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> sense"
> char* p2=(char*)0x4000; // address not pointing to any "C-object in the C99
> sense"
>
> Can GCC users trust that p2-p1 will alw
--- Comment #34 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-13 12:14 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
> > Not really, you could always subtract. However, far pointers gave
> > predictable addresses, just like C99 says they pointer arithmetic should.
> They didn't. If you subtracted far pointer
--- Comment #33 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 18:56 ---
> Don't talk about what you don't know, you clearly know much less about the
> old days than me.
Well, I'll grant you that you know many wondrous and astounding "facts",
indeed. Let me just answer one random sentence
--- Comment #32 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 18:38 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> >you can't even begin to understand how to make a temporary variable an
> >l-value.
> Please look up "move constructors" and rvalue references. "move constructors"
> are not standard C++ cod
--- Comment #31 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 18:32 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> I built your test case with gcc and g++ without optimizations, and it worked
> fine.
Just like my script? I noticed that I'm using a not-the-newest GCC version, and
I know that some older ver
--- Comment #30 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 18:27
---
>you can't even begin to understand how to make a temporary variable an l-value.
Please look up "move constructors" and rvalue references. "move constructors"
are not standard C++ code but the C++ standard commit
--- Comment #29 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 18:24 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Oh, this fun. Enjoyable, really! ;-)
Again I couldn't resist! Everytime I'm ready to go away you say something
shocking that I simply can«t resist. Its time for me to admit I have a problem!
--- Comment #28 from dj at redhat dot com 2010-08-12 18:08 ---
I built your test case with gcc and g++ without optimizations, and it worked
fine. I could only get it to fail with gcc/g++ by optimizing, but then, I
could get it to fail with MSVC by optimizing. Seems to me, gcc and MSVC
--- Comment #27 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 18:05 ---
Oh, this fun. Enjoyable, really! ;-)
So, you admit that MSVC does in fact "miscompile" your perfectly fine cdecl
code, if you request optimization from it? How bad is that of them?
Terrible! I would consider creati
--- Comment #26 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 18:04 ---
> You opened this bug report with insults, what sort of response do you expect?
> GCC is too crappy and amateur for your awesome code, so I suggest you stick to
> better compilers.
Will do, thanks.
... and sorry for my
--- Comment #25 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 17:53 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Maybe you do a good job when you quickly send them away after stamping it with
> "non-conformant", I don't know, but I expected a little more interest on your
> part to make GCC better. I wo
--- Comment #24 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 17:50 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I couldn't resist to comming back (you respond very quickly, kudos!, I'm not
used to that! :-)
> Just for fun, I compiled this test case with various levels of optimization.
> It works fine w
--- Comment #23 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 17:25 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Everyone understands it, you're just wrong.
No I'm not, the problem seems to be just to complex for you because you would
have to tie up C99+cdecl to understand, but you don't understand it b
--- Comment #22 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 17:24 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> Even without optimization (as the compilation script uses), the program
> crashes.
Right, that was the point of introducing the 1000-character buffer. With it it
crashes always.
> To be con
--- Comment #21 from froydnj at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 17:08
---
Even without optimization (as the compilation script uses), the program
crashes. To be concrete about what's going wrong based on what the assembly
code actually looks like (GCC version Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5):
bu
--- Comment #20 from dj at redhat dot com 2010-08-12 16:57 ---
Just for fun, I compiled this test case with various levels of optimization.
It works fine without optimization or with -O1, but segfaults at -O2 or -O3.
That indicates that the program only works by coincidence, not by des
--- Comment #19 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:20 ---
Everyone understands it, you're just wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
--- Comment #18 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 16:18 ---
You know what? I did a small sample showing this bug to other people. They all
understood it, but not you. They all know what it means C99+cdecl at the same
time. You don't. I'm surprised at your lack of capacity for ude
--- Comment #17 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 16:18 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Seriously, go away. I'll get far ruder if you're going to open bug reports
> worded like this:
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Don't bother trying to understand why I need the & operand to wor
--- Comment #16 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:17 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
>
> char* p1=random_address();
> char* p2=another_random_address();
>
> p1-p2 is always well defined, no matter to which objects they point to.
No. No it isn't. It really isn't.
(In reply
--- Comment #15 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 16:15 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> I never claimed p1 and p2 have different types. They have the same type.
> But the standard paragraph I mentioned says:
> "When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of th
--- Comment #14 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:11 ---
I never claimed p1 and p2 have different types. They have the same type.
But the standard paragraph I mentioned says:
"When two pointers are subtracted, both shall point to elements of the same
array object, or one p
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:09
---
>diferent types?
He did not say different types but different objects. There is a difference
between objects and types. This comes down to:
&a - &b being undefined in C90/C99/C++98/C++03/C++0x because a and b ar
--- Comment #12 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:09 ---
Seriously, go away. I'll get far ruder if you're going to open bug reports
worded like this:
(In reply to comment #0)
> Don't bother trying to understand why I need the & operand to work as stated
> in
> C99, or why
--- Comment #11 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 16:04 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > Pretty please, before filing further bugs take time and learn C.
> > > The pointer subtraction triggers undefined behavior, because o
--- Comment #10 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 16:00 ---
Ahh, it's just so entertaining.
C99 is a language, cdecl a calling convention. There is no 'cdecl compiler',
it makes no sense to speak about such a thing. cdecl is a calling convention
for function written in all k
--- Comment #9 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-08-12 15:52 ---
The parameters contain copies of the argument values (6.9.1#10: "as if by
assignment"). The address of a parameter has no meaning.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
--- Comment #8 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 15:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Pretty please, before filing further bugs take time and learn C.
> > The pointer subtraction triggers undefined behavior, because one pointer
> > points
> > to on
--- Comment #7 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 15:33 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999, 6.9.1 Function definitions
> 9. Each parameter has automatic storage duration. Its identifier is an lvalue,
> which is in effect declared at the head of the compound statement
--- Comment #6 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 15:33 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Pretty please, before filing further bugs take time and learn C.
> The pointer subtraction triggers undefined behavior, because one pointer
> points
> to one object and the other pointer points
--- Comment #5 from schwab at linux-m68k dot org 2010-08-12 15:24 ---
ISO/IEC 9899:1999, 6.9.1 Function definitions
9. Each parameter has automatic storage duration. Its identifier is an lvalue,
which is in effect declared at the head of the compound statement that
constitutes the funct
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 15:08 ---
Pretty please, before filing further bugs take time and learn C.
The pointer subtraction triggers undefined behavior, because one pointer points
to one object and the other pointer points to different object.
See ISO C
--- Comment #3 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 14:54 ---
Correction:
If line "char buffer[1000]; buffer[0]=0;" _is removed then_ GCC then compiles
the code as expected and "dif" will be 4.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
--- Comment #2 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 14:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=21470)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21470&action=view)
Compilation script
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
--- Comment #1 from rogerio at rilhas dot com 2010-08-12 14:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=21469)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21469&action=view)
Preprocessed file
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45265
59 matches
Mail list logo