detect necessary #includes

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

I already said, you can do anything if you're careless.

A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...

Was the misquotation deliberate?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Do you often find your employers require those settings in official
builds?

Absolutely. You mean yours don't? Sheesh, sucks to be you. It's much easier
to insist on decent diagnostic checking when your project lead insists on
it as well.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

As Richard pointed out elsethread, once you turn up the diagnostic
level to catch as many errors as possible, you have probably
disabled any ability to use // comments. Around here we aim for
maximum portability. // comments are not conducive to such.

We could argue this all day. For what its worth, any decent compiler
will come with the ability to disable warnings you don't mind about.
But frankly, I'm not all that hung up on either method. I'd use the
macro method for large commentings out, the comment method for small
ones. YMMV. FIDGTW....

Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You *still* miss the point,

I ___NEVER__ missed the point. You on the other hand are being
clinically dense^wpedantic today.

which is that turning off syntax error
diagnostics for // can, in some implementations, also turn off a whole
bunch of other diagnostics that I for one would rather not lose.

Then get a decent implementation. Don't blame me for the shortcoming
of your toolset.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:

Absolutely. You mean yours don't?

Certainly not - how on earth would you compile several million lines
of Open Interface, DBlib and misc assembler with those warning levels.

Sheesh, sucks to be you. It's much easier
to insist on decent diagnostic checking when your project lead insists on
it as well.

You live in cloud cuckoo land.


Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


Was the misquotation deliberate?

Was there one? I rest my case.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:30:10 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard

(of compiling with gcc's strict ANSI flags)

Absolutely.

I meant to add: I'm sorry, but now you're being disingenuous, and
quite possibly mendacious. Please do take offense at that if it
offends you, but this discussion has descended into idiocy, so idiotic
replies are called for.

Mark McIntyre

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre said:


I can download the latest gcc just as easily as you can.

Then do so, and (sorry about this) learn to use it properly.

thats enough about this.
Mark McIntyre

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

I ___NEVER__ missed the point. You on the other hand are being
clinically dense^wpedantic today.

No comment.

Then get a decent implementation. Don't blame me for the shortcoming
of your toolset.

You **still** miss the point. I don't write code for an implementation. I
write C code. Quite often, I don't have any control whatsoever over which
implementation (or implementationS) will be used to compile the code. So I
have to write in a portable way. The // "comment" syntax, quite simply, is
not portable.

If I were only writing for my "favourite" implementation, this would be so
not an issue as to be a complete irrelevance, but so would any number of
other non-portable constructs, such as void main, behaviour on signed
integer overflow, forgetting stdio.h for printf, and so on and so forth.
And I'd be cheerfully using sockets and threads and console I/O and all
manner of other language extensions, without worrying one jot about whether
J Random Conforming Implementation supported them. Are you suggesting that
we should be recommending such constructs here on comp.lang.c?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

You live in cloud cuckoo land.

Consider other possibilities.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:30:10 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard

(of compiling with gcc's strict ANSI flags)


I meant to add: I'm sorry, but now you're being disingenuous, and
quite possibly mendacious.

Neither. The world is larger than you know.

Please do take offense at that if it offends you,

Why should I take offence? It's clear that you don't know what you're
talking about at the moment, and there is little point in being offended by
ignorance.

but this discussion has descended into idiocy, so idiotic
replies are called for.

You have succeeded in that, at least.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

Then do so, and (sorry about this) learn to use it properly.

How, precisely, would this make non-portable code more portable? Do you
understand what "portable" means?

thats enough about this.

Nobody obliges you to respond.

 

[Chuck F.]

Certainly not - how on earth would you compile several million
lines of Open Interface, DBlib and misc assembler with those
warning levels.

In different files, with the settings appropriate to the files. If
most can't be handled with pure standard C there is something wrong
with the organization.

Maybe we should all insist on editors with a 64k content limit

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Chuck F. wrote:

[...biiiig snip...]

Maybe we should all insist on editors with a 64k content limit

I'll second that immediatelly! I had too many encounters with
(third-party) source files that ran into hundreds of KBs, with functions
that were pushing at 10 Klines.

;-)

Cheers

Vladimir