On 11/23/19 6:35 PM, Simon Slavin wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2019, at 11:06pm, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
>> given the choice between
>>
>> (1) Code that works and does something useful
>> (2) Code that is standards compliant
>>
>> I'll always go with (1).
> Another problem is that different compilers, or the
1 - I was taught C by kre back in 1982 (or was it 1983?), on a VAX
called "munnari," for those who remember their history :->
I remember you however I started on BSD implementaions in 83 or 84 with
the first real big workstations I had being the Apollo DN1000 and DN3000
boxen. Those things
On 24/11/2019 10:35, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 23 Nov 2019, at 11:06pm, Richard Hipp wrote:
given the choice between
(1) Code that works and does something useful
(2) Code that is standards compliant
I'll always go with (1).
Another problem is that different compilers, or the same compiler
On 11/23/19 11:35 PM, Simon Slavin wrote:
On 23 Nov 2019, at 11:06pm, Richard Hipp wrote:
given the choice between
(1) Code that works and does something useful
(2) Code that is standards compliant
I'll always go with (1).
Another problem is that different compilers, or the same compiler
On 23 Nov 2019, at 11:06pm, Richard Hipp wrote:
> given the choice between
>
> (1) Code that works and does something useful
> (2) Code that is standards compliant
>
> I'll always go with (1).
Another problem is that different compilers, or the same compiler with
different options, warn
On 11/23/19 11:06 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
conforming to strict standards instead of what compilers actually do
My problem here is that the compilers and their ability to comply with
those wonderful cross platform standards is always a moving picture.
Regardless it may be of some value to put
On 11/23/19, Peter da Silva wrote:
> Strictly compliant code strictly doesn't need to do anything at all,
> conforming to strict standards instead of what compilers actually do is an
> interesting intellectual exercise but is not necessarily useful.
Right. So given the choice between
(1) Code
Op za 23 nov. 2019 om 23:27 schreef Dennis Clarke:
> /usr/local/build/sqlite-src-3300100_Oracle_sparc64vii+.005/src/tclsqlite.c:
> "/usr/local/build/sqlite-src-3300100_Oracle_sparc64vii+.005/src/tclsqlite.c",
> line 2624: warning: argument #3 is incompatible with prototype:
> prototype:
Strictly compliant code strictly doesn't need to do anything at all,
conforming to strict standards instead of what compilers actually do is an
interesting intellectual exercise but is not necessarily useful.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 16:27 Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> I may be the only person that
I may be the only person that does this sort of testing for my own
reasons and perhaps for sanity checking also. I tend to think that if
something is written to be compliant with C89/C90 then I should be able
to run the most strict compliance compiler flags in creation and be
perfectly happy.
10 matches
Mail list logo
