From: invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the Mighty) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: DJGPP reserves wrong int size Organization: Low Charisma Anonymous Message-ID: <3b3b4b39.212640295@news.primus.ca> References: <9dde68b7 DOT 0106241053 DOT 2a385311 AT posting DOT google DOT com> <3b37e7cc DOT 288391695 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 77 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:32:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.176.153.146 X-Complaints-To: news AT primus DOT ca X-Trace: news1.tor.primus.ca 993742424 207.176.153.146 (Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:33:44 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:33:44 EDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:05:45 +0100, Mark McIntyre sat on a tribble, which squeaked: >On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 01:42:23 GMT, invalid AT erehwon DOT invalid (Graaagh the >Mighty) wrote: > >>>Note that you are asking questions about compiler implementation internals that >>>are off topic in comp.lang.c. >> >>I fail to see how that is relevant in comp.os.msdos.djgpp. > >because this was crossposted to many groups. So he gets an answer >relevant to that group. Its always worth reading the group list. The group list, as displayed by Free Agent, was "comp.os.msdos.djgpp". (It appears in the window title when an article is being viewed. The title changes to the subject line when writing an article.) Don't, by the way, suggest I use another news reader. The alternatives make my skin crawl. One comes from Microsoft. Netscape's regularly hangs the OS. The only remaining free ones for Windoze I am aware of are crummy ports of Unix ones, and get the worst of both worlds, as they use the crappy Windoze interface but don't stick to its standards and you need a degree in rocket science and advanced linear algebra in order to so much as configure them to talk to your ISP's news server, let alone actually subscribe a group and read 1 article from it. (DJGPP, fortunately, doesn't get "the worst of both worlds", although RSXNTDJ did during its heyday. It is no more rocket science than any other C compiler out there -- arguably the snazzy commercial ones are worse for that because they hide some of the process and then fail in obscure ways you don't know how to fix, and then you don't have a newsgroup for support, you have their hugely expensive "toll-free" number. And it doesn't pretend to be a Windoze program, nor does it need a GUI to be used effectively. Unlike, say, your editor, or your newsreader, where you want to have multiple windows open at once and to be able to navigate visually rather than by the usual process of "hit the eight bucky keys and the other key, frantically escape out of the unfamiliar prompt, go to the help file, try to read it, try to get out of the help browser, fail, try to find the section of the help file about exiting the help browser, hit the eight bucky keys and the other key...") >The result of the COMPILATION is some translated text which may be an >object module, or may be a hippo. ISO doesn't define that. If so, they made a rather large oversight, since that means I can call my program that occasionally reboots the machine and otherwise generates pretty Mandelbrot fractals "an ANSI C Compiler" and nobody can prove me wrong... All I have to do is make it able to read a source file, and proceed to generate a Mandelbrot fractal (or, perhaps, reboot the machine)... >The result of your PROGRAM is the output. As a C programmer you should >care about the latter, not the former. The result of that includes its speed of execution and its memory requirements, and that gets to the heart of the matter the original poster was questioning. >(In CLC, the result of a program is pretty much defined by ISO as >being the output. Who cares what the compiler produces ? thats >implementation specific stuff.) Well, if the compiler doesn't actually produce object code that runs as the program on the CPU involved, I'd become a tad concerned. >Could be, but ANSI/ISO don't care and nor should the OP. I hate to burst your theoretical bubble, but programmers can and will care about the code speed and memory requirements, and this isn't even wrong. Why, otherwise, do they make *optimizers*? -- Bill Gates: "No computer will ever need more than 640K of RAM." -- 1980 "There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of." -- 1980 "This antitrust thing will blow over." -- 1998 Combine neo, an underscore, and one thousand sixty-one to make my hotmail addy.