|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Thad SmithThad Smith
Date: Dec 9, 2007 14:45
lostlander wrote:
> In ARMCC, and Microsoft C, when i use a function which is never
> defined or delared, it gives out a warning, not a compiling error?
> why?
>
> (This leads to a bug to my program since I seldom pay much attention
> to warnings...)
C90 permits calls to undeclared functions. The linking process,
however, usually generates an error if there are undefined references.
Some linkers have an option to generate an executable file even through
there are undefined references (called function doesn't exist). Are you
getting an undefined reference error from your linker (translation phase 8)?
--
Thad
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Tomás Ó hÉilidheTomás Ó hÉilidhe
Date: Dec 9, 2007 14:14
I've been developing a C89 microcontroller application for a while
now and I've been testing its compilation using gcc. I've gotten zero
errors and zero warnings with gcc, but now that I've moved over to the
micrcontroller compiler I'm getting all sorts of errors.
One thing I'd like to clarify is the need (in C89) for a compile-
time constant in the initialiser of a variable. The compiler rejects the
following source file:
/* Start foo.c */
int const a = 7;
int b = a;
/* End foo.c */
It says that the initialiser of "b" needs to be a compile-time
constant. Is it true that the initialiser of a non-const global object
needs to be a compile-time constant in C89? Or is this just a short
coming of the compiler?
Another related question:
/* Start bar.c */
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
|
| |
10 Comments |
|
|
Author: Kenny McCormackKenny McCormack
Date: Dec 9, 2007 13:35
>Mark McIntyre spamcop.net> writes:...
>> The document you referenced is *not* a charter, not even according to
>> the founders of this group.
>
>It IS the originating charter. If you don't get locked up in word games.
Indeed. As I've said else-thread, the real question is why these
nut-jobs think the distinction matters.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Kenny McCormackKenny McCormack
Date: Dec 9, 2007 13:32
>jacob navia wrote:
>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>> The message you cited doesn't even contain the word "charter".
>>
>> It is *the* founding message of this group.
>
>A Charter is not an email. It has a very specific meaning in usenet.
Granted. But this is simply not a distinction that anyone with an IQ
above room temperature gives a hoot about.
Thus:
1) The psychosis of those who continue to insist that there is a
difference (that matters to anyone other than other psychotics) would
make a great case study for a Psychology PHD.
2) Jacob *would* probably do well to stop using that (that old email) as
his case, since the psychotics that he is trying to convince (his
intended audience) have alreay shown themselves immune to it.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Richard HeathfieldRichard Heathfield
Date: Dec 9, 2007 13:11
James Kuyper said:
> jacob navia wrote:
> ...
>> WORD GAMES. That is exactly their attitude.
>
> Words matter. Using them correctly matters. Calling it "word games" or
> "mere semantics" or "pedanticism" is just a symptom of sloppy thinking.
Right. It should be "pedantry".
:-)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Kenny McCormackKenny McCormack
Date: Dec 9, 2007 13:07
In article news.individual.net>,
Richard gmail.com> wrote:>Keith Thompson mib.org> writes:
>>> jacob navia nospam.com> writes:
>> [...]>>> The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
>>> that it was just ISO C.
>> [...]
>>
>> This newsgroup has no charter.
The extreme psychosis evidenced by this (often repeated statement)
speaks for itself. Obviously this group has "something" about it that
makes it have a clearly defined purpose and clearly defined (and often
enunciated) limits on what should (and can) be discussed. If that isn't
a charter (or the moral equivalent thereof, regardless of what you
choose to call it), I don't know what is.
|
| Show full article (1.99Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: gw7ribgw7rib
Date: Dec 9, 2007 12:18
On 8 Dec, 20:06, CLC stats wrote:
> Total posts considered: 1,236 over 7 days
> Earliest article: Sat Dec 8 08:04:01 2007
> Latest article: Sat Dec 8 06:04:02 2007
That's an interesting definition of "7 days".
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack KleinJack Klein
Date: Dec 9, 2007 11:07
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:05:57 -0800 (PST), lostlander
gmail.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:
> In ARMCC, and Microsoft C, when i use a function which is never
> defined or delared, it gives out a warning, not a compiling error?
> why?
>
> (This leads to a bug to my program since I seldom pay much attention
> to warnings...)
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
