www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

c++ - ANSI compiling issue

reply Laurentiu Pancescu <plaur crosswinds.net> writes:
Hi!

I'm having trouble compiling in ANSI mode (sc -A).  The
problems arise when including the standard header file "stdlib.h":
there are several functions which use "long long" and/or
"wchar_t".  Use example below (hello.c - C file, but we also get errors
in C++ mode):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* we'll get errors here */

int main(void)
{
  printf("Hello, world!\n");
  exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

Using -Aw solves the problems with wchar_t, but not the ones
with long long.  Anyway, the header files should ifdef out such
definitions in ANSI mode, because it prevents compiling
perfectly legal ANSI code, be it C or C++.  I don't think that a
compiler should choke at its own headers...

I'm using the 8.1c patch for the CD.  BTW, in the change log
for 8.18 it's written: "long longs no longer turned off by -A" -
then, why am I getting these errors?


Laurentiu Pancescu
Aug 19 2001
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
You're right, that's a bug and I'll get it fixed. -Walter

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9lp5t9$2f34$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

Hi!

I'm having trouble compiling in ANSI mode (sc -A).  The
problems arise when including the standard header file "stdlib.h":
there are several functions which use "long long" and/or
"wchar_t".  Use example below (hello.c - C file, but we also get errors
in C++ mode):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* we'll get errors here */

int main(void)
{
  printf("Hello, world!\n");
  exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

Using -Aw solves the problems with wchar_t, but not the ones
with long long.  Anyway, the header files should ifdef out such
definitions in ANSI mode, because it prevents compiling
perfectly legal ANSI code, be it C or C++.  I don't think that a
compiler should choke at its own headers...

I'm using the 8.1c patch for the CD.  BTW, in the change log
for 8.18 it's written: "long longs no longer turned off by -A" -
then, why am I getting these errors?


Laurentiu Pancescu
Aug 20 2001
parent reply Laurentiu Pancescu <plaur crosswinds.net> writes:
Great to hear this - Walter, you're very responsive, as always!
 When do you think the changes will be available for download?
 Sorry for reporting bugs <g> - DM is great, I really love
it!!!  Perhaps we could help spreading it by contributing with
makefiles to various projects: I don't see why V or FLTK, for
instance, can have project files for the commercial Borland or
Microsoft compilers, and not also for DigitalMars, which is also
available as a free download - it's really a pity!

I got into this ANSI problem while trying to compile NASM 0.98
with DM, and since NASM wants to be compiled in ANSI-C mode
with any compiler, I tried!!  BTW, NASM compiles without any
problems with a slightly modified version of Makefile.scw (CFLAGS=-c
-Jm -a1 -mn -o -w2 -w7 -6).  I had to use "relaxed type
checking", because otherwise DM gives errors in nasmlib.c, because
failing to convert pointers from type "void (*)(void)" to various
pointers to void-returning functions, but with various
arguments.  I also think this is wrong (I don't know if it also
happens with -A, since DM doesn't pass its own stdlib.h):
- the definition "void null_debug_routine() {}" is NOT the same
with "void null_debug_routine(void){}", in ANSI-C, because
lack of arguments means no info about the arguments, and not
"void" as argument list (this is only true in C++)
- pointer conversion is allowed in C without explicit cast: the
compiler might generate warnings in this case, but not errors.

This is, of course, in the light of my current C/C++ knowledge.
 I also compiled NASM 0.98 with gcc, lccwin32 and Borland C++
5.5.1, without any problems, in ANSI mode (not even "-Wall
-ansi -pedantic" doesn't complain at these conversions if compiling
with gcc-2.95.3).  So, I guess I can't be too wrong, but I
would be especially interested in Walter's or Jan's opinions about this.

How can I detect if my code compiles in ANSI-C++ mode, using
#ifdef?  According to spec, in ANSI-C mode, __STDC__ is defined,
and, when compiling C++, __cplusplus will be defined, and
__STDC__ not (this is implementation dependent: __STDC__ may, or may
not be defined, but it's not by most compilers).  How is this in DM?


Laurentiu Pancescu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


You're right, that's a bug and I'll get it fixed. -Walter

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9lp5t9$2f34$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

Hi!

I'm having trouble compiling in ANSI mode (sc -A).  The
problems arise when including the standard header file "stdlib.h":
there are several functions which use "long long" and/or
"wchar_t".  Use example below (hello.c - C file, but we also get errors
in C++ mode):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* we'll get errors here */

int main(void)
{
  printf("Hello, world!\n");
  exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

Using -Aw solves the problems with wchar_t, but not the ones
with long long.  Anyway, the header files should ifdef out such
definitions in ANSI mode, because it prevents compiling
perfectly legal ANSI code, be it C or C++.  I don't think that a
compiler should choke at its own headers...

I'm using the 8.1c patch for the CD.  BTW, in the change log
for 8.18 it's written: "long longs no longer turned off by -A" -
then, why am I getting these errors?


Laurentiu Pancescu
Aug 29 2001
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
I've attached a fixed stdlib.h. Try it with that one. -Walter


Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9mjfb8$4ua$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

Great to hear this - Walter, you're very responsive, as always!
 When do you think the changes will be available for download?
 Sorry for reporting bugs <g> - DM is great, I really love
it!!!  Perhaps we could help spreading it by contributing with
makefiles to various projects: I don't see why V or FLTK, for
instance, can have project files for the commercial Borland or
Microsoft compilers, and not also for DigitalMars, which is also
available as a free download - it's really a pity!

I got into this ANSI problem while trying to compile NASM 0.98
with DM, and since NASM wants to be compiled in ANSI-C mode
with any compiler, I tried!!  BTW, NASM compiles without any
problems with a slightly modified version of Makefile.scw (CFLAGS=-c
-Jm -a1 -mn -o -w2 -w7 -6).  I had to use "relaxed type
checking", because otherwise DM gives errors in nasmlib.c, because
failing to convert pointers from type "void (*)(void)" to various
pointers to void-returning functions, but with various
arguments.  I also think this is wrong (I don't know if it also
happens with -A, since DM doesn't pass its own stdlib.h):
- the definition "void null_debug_routine() {}" is NOT the same
with "void null_debug_routine(void){}", in ANSI-C, because
lack of arguments means no info about the arguments, and not
"void" as argument list (this is only true in C++)
- pointer conversion is allowed in C without explicit cast: the
compiler might generate warnings in this case, but not errors.

This is, of course, in the light of my current C/C++ knowledge.
 I also compiled NASM 0.98 with gcc, lccwin32 and Borland C++
5.5.1, without any problems, in ANSI mode (not even "-Wall
-ansi -pedantic" doesn't complain at these conversions if compiling
with gcc-2.95.3).  So, I guess I can't be too wrong, but I
would be especially interested in Walter's or Jan's opinions about this.

How can I detect if my code compiles in ANSI-C++ mode, using
#ifdef?  According to spec, in ANSI-C mode, __STDC__ is defined,
and, when compiling C++, __cplusplus will be defined, and
__STDC__ not (this is implementation dependent: __STDC__ may, or may
not be defined, but it's not by most compilers).  How is this in DM?


Laurentiu Pancescu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


You're right, that's a bug and I'll get it fixed. -Walter

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9lp5t9$2f34$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

Hi!

I'm having trouble compiling in ANSI mode (sc -A).  The
problems arise when including the standard header file "stdlib.h":
there are several functions which use "long long" and/or
"wchar_t".  Use example below (hello.c - C file, but we also get errors
in C++ mode):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h> /* we'll get errors here */

int main(void)
{
  printf("Hello, world!\n");
  exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}

Using -Aw solves the problems with wchar_t, but not the ones
with long long.  Anyway, the header files should ifdef out such
definitions in ANSI mode, because it prevents compiling
perfectly legal ANSI code, be it C or C++.  I don't think that a
compiler should choke at its own headers...

I'm using the 8.1c patch for the CD.  BTW, in the change log
for 8.18 it's written: "long longs no longer turned off by -A" -
then, why am I getting these errors?


Laurentiu Pancescu







begin 666 stdlib.h







M*B!$969I;F4 7T-25$%023( *&9O<B!C;VUP871I8FEL:71Y('=I=&  =&AE
M($Y4(%-$2RD *B\-"B-I9FYD968 7T-25$%023(-"B-D969I;F4 7T-25$%0

M9FYD968 7T-25$E-4 T*(VEF(&1E9FEN960H7U=)3C,R*2 F)B!D969I;F5D







M1$5&24Y%1"D-"G1Y<&5D968 =6YS:6=N960 <VAO<G0 =V-H87)?=#L-"B-D

M"B-P<F%G;6$ <&%C:RA?7T1%1D%,24=.*0T*='EP961E9B!S=')U8W0 7T1)

M3$1)5B![(&QO;F< <75O="QR96T[('T ;&1I=E]T.PT*(VEF(%]?24Y44TE:

M="QR96T[('T ;&QD:79?=#L-"B-E;F1I9 T*(W!R86=M82!P86-K*"D-" T*






M:68-" T*(VEF9&5F(%]?3E1?7PT*97AT97)N(&EN="!?7T-,24()7U]L;V-A






M7T-,24( 7V5R<FYO("AV;VED*3L-"B-D969I;F4 97)R;F\ *"I?97)R;F\H






M8VAA<B J*3L-"FQO;F< ("!?7T-,24( 871O;"AC;VYS="!C:&%R("HI.PT*
M9&]U8FQE(%]?0TQ)0B!S=')T;V0H8V]N<W0 8VAA<B J+&-H87( *BHI.PT*

M*BHI.PT*;&]N9R  (%]?0TQ)0B!S=')T;VPH8V]N<W0 8VAA<B J+&-H87( 
M*BHL:6YT*3L-"G5N<VEG;F5D(&QO;F< (%]?0TQ)0B!S=')T;W5L*&-O;G-T

M;F< ;&]N9R  (%]?0TQ)0B!A=&]L;"AC;VYS="!C:&%R("HI.PT*;&]N9R!L

M*3L-"G5N<VEG;F5D(&QO;F< ;&]N9R!?7T-,24( <W1R=&]U;&PH8V]N<W0 
M8VAA<B J+&-H87( *BHL:6YT*3L-"B-E;F1I9 T*:6YT("  (%]?0TQ)0B!R







M0TQ)0B!A=&5X:70H=F]I9" H*BDH=F]I9"DI.PT*=F]I9"  (%]?0TQ)0B!E


M971E;G8H8V]N<W0 8VAA<B J*3L-"FEN="  ("!?7T-,24( <WES=&5M*&-O

M9" J+&-O;G-T('9O:60 *BQS:7IE7W0L<VEZ95]T+ T*("  ("  (&EN=" H


M:6YT("A?7T-,24( *BDH8V]N<W0 =F]I9" J+&-O;G-T('9O:60 *BDI.PT*
M:6YT("  (%]?0TQ)0B!A8G,H:6YT*3L-"FQO;F< ("!?7T-,24( ;&%B<RAL
M;VYG*3L-"F1I=E]T("!?7T-,24( 9&EV*&EN="QI;G0I.PT*;&1I=E]T(%]?

M;F< ;&]N9R  (%]?0TQ)0B!L;&%B<RAL;VYG(&QO;F<I.PT*;&QD:79?="!?






M+"!S:7IE7W0I.PT*<VEZ95]T(%]?0TQ)0B!W8W-T;VUB<RAC:&%R("HL(&-O
M;G-T('=C:&%R7W0 *BP <VEZ95]T*3L-"G9O:60 ("!?7T-,24( <&5R<F]R



M("  ("  (%]?0TQ)0B!?<F]T;"AU;G-I9VYE9"QI;G0I.PT*=6YS:6=N960 

M;VYG("!?7T-,24( 7VQR;W1L*'5N<VEG;F5D(&QO;F<L:6YT*3L-"G5N<VEG
M;F5D(&QO;F< (%]?0TQ)0B!?;')O='(H=6YS:6=N960 ;&]N9RQI;G0I.PT*
M8VAA<B J(%]?0TQ)0B!?9G5L;'!A=& H8VAA<B J8G5F+&-O;G-T(&-H87( 



M>7-?97)R;&ES=%M=.PT*(V1E9FEN92!?<WES7VYE<G( <WES7VYE<G(-"B-D




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

M=V-S=&]M8G,H8VAA<B!?7V9A<B J+"!C;VYS="!W8VAA<E]T(%]?9F%R("HL





M>'1E<FX =6YS:6=N960 :6YT(%]?8V1E8VP 7V]S=F5R.PT*(VEF;F1E9B!?

M>'1E<FX =6YS:6=N960 8VAA<B!?7V-D96-L(%]O<VUA:F]R.PT*97AT97)N

M:69D968 7T1,3 T*97AT97)N(&EN=" J(%]?0TQ)0B!?7W!?7U]A<F=C*'9O
M:60I.PT*97AT97)N(&-H87( *BHJ(%]?0TQ)0B!?7W!?7U]A<F=V*'9O:60I
M.PT*97AT97)N('=C:&%R7W0 *BHJ(%]?0TQ)0B!?7W!?7U]W87)G=BAV;VED
M*3L-"B-D969I;F4 7U]A<F=C"2 J7U]P7U]?87)G8R I*0T*(V1E9FEN92!?

M7U]W87)G=B I*0T*(V5L<V4-"F5X=&5R;B!I;G0 7U]C9&5C;"!?7V%R9V,[


M9" H7U=)3C,R*0T*=V-H87)?=" J*B!?7T-,24( 7U]W<&%R<V5C;61L:6YE
M*&-O;G-T('=C:&%R7W0 *BP :6YT("HI.PT*8VAA<B J*B!?7T-,24( 7U]P

M(VEF(&1E9FEN960H7U=)3D1/5U,I('Q\(&1E9FEN960H7U].5%]?*0T*97AT

M=6YS:6=N960 8VAA<B!?7V-D96-L(%]W:6YM:6YO<CL-"F5X=&5R;B!U;G-I





M9"!C:&%R(%]?8V1E8VP 7V]S;6]D93L-" T*(V1E9FEN92!?4D5!3%]-3T1%



M*BP 8VAA<B J+&-H87( *BP 8VAA<B J+"!C:&%R("HI.PT*=F]I9"!?7V-D
M96-L(%]M86ME<&%T:"AC:&%R("HL(&-O;G-T(&-H87( *BQC;VYS="!C:&%R
M("HL(&-O;G-T(&-H87( *BP 8V]N<W0 8VAA<B J*3L-"G9O:60 7U]C9&5C
M;"!?<V5A<F-H96YV*&-O;G-T(&-H87( *F9I;&5N86UE+"!C;VYS="!C:&%R



M:68 7U])3E1325I%(#T
M7U]F87( *BQS:7IE7W0I.PT*(V5L<V4-"FEN="!?7V-D96-L(%]H96%P861D

M;BAV;VED*3L-" T*(VEF9&5F(%]?3E1?7PT*(V1E9FEN92!?97AP86YD(')E




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

M96%R("HL<VEZ95]T*3L-"G9O:60 7U]C9&5C;"!?;F9R964H=F]I9"!?7VYE

M.PT*<VEZ95]T(%]?8V1E8VP 7VUE;6UA>"AV;VED*3L-"G-I>F5?="!?7V-D


M;FUA;&QO8RAS:7IE7W0I.PT*=F]I9" J(%]?8V1E8VP 7VYC86QL;V,H<VEZ



M;65M;6%X*'9O:60I.PT*<VEZ95]T(%]?8V1E8VP 7VUE;6%V;"AV;VED*3L-
M"G5N<VEG;F5D(&EN="!?7V-D96-L(%]F<F5E8W0H<VEZ95]T*3L-"G5N<VEG



M;"!?9FUA;&QO8RAS:7IE7W0I.PT*=F]I9"!?7V9A<B J(%]?8V1E8VP 7V9C




M25I%(#T



M;V$H;&]N9RP 8VAA<B J+"!I;G0I.PT*8VAA<B J(%]?0TQ)0B!?;'1O82AL

M;F5D(&QO;F<L(&-H87( *BP :6YT*3L-"F-H87( *B!?7T-,24( 96-V="AD
M;W5B;&4L:6YT+&EN=" J+&EN=" J*3L-"F-H87( *B!?7T-,24( 9F-V="AD
M;W5B;&4L:6YT+&EN=" J+&EN=" J*3L-"F-H87( *B!?7T-,24( 7V9C=G0H

M9&]U8FQE+&EN="QC:&%R("HI.PT*=F]I9" J(%]?8V1E8VP <V)R:RAS:7IE
M7W0I.PT*=F]I9"  (%]?0TQ)0B!S=V%B*&-H87( *BQC:&%R("HL<VEZ95]T
M*3L-"F9L;V%T("!?7T-,24( <W1R=&]F*&-O;G-T(&-H87( *BQC:&%R("HJ









M>7!E9&5F('9O:60 *%]?8V1E8VP *B!?9F]N97AI=%]T*2AV;VED*3L-"E]F
M;VYE>&ET7W0 7U]C9&5C;"!?9F]N97AI=" H7V9O;F5X:71?="!F=6YC*3L-

M9&5C;"!?7V9A<B J9G5N8RDH=F]I9"DI.PT*='EP961E9B!V;VED("A?7V-D


M:68-" T*='EP961E9B!V;VED("A?7V-D96-L("H 7V]N97AI=%]T*2AV;VED
M*3L-"E]O;F5X:71?="!?7V-D96-L(%]O;F5X:70 *%]O;F5X:71?="!F=6YC
M*3L-" T*(VEF;F1E9B!?7U-41$-?7PT*(V1E9FEN92!O;F5X:70 7V]N97AI

M(%]?9F%R(%]?0TQ)0B!?7VUA;&QO8V8H<VEZ95]T*3L-"G9O:60 ("  ("  




M969I;F4 7U]M87 H82QB*2  ("  ("  ("  (" H*&$I(#X *&(I*2 _("AA
M*2 Z("AB*2D-"B-D969I;F4 7U]M:6XH82QB*2  ("  ("  ("  (" H*&$I
M(#P




M7U]F87( 7U]C9&5C;" J7VUA;&QO8U]H86YD;&5R*2AV;VED*3L-"F5X=&5R


M(%]E;G9I<F]N(" J7W!?96YV:7)O;B I*0T*(V5L<V4-"F5X=&5R;B!C:&%R


M='( 7V5N=G!T< T*97AT97)N('=C:&%R7W0 *B!?7V-D96-L(%]W96YV<'1R

M=V5N=FER;VX *'9O:60I.PT*(V1E9FEN92!?=V5N=FER;VX *"I?<%]W96YV
M:7)O;B I*0T*(V5L<V4-"F5X=&5R;B!W8VAA<E]T("HJ(%]?8V1E8VP 7W=E


M960 *%]?3E1?7RD ?'P 9&5F:6YE9" H1$]3,S V*2D-"F5X=&5R;B!I;G0 


M:6YT(%]?8V1E8VP ;W!T:6YD.PT*97AT97)N(&EN="!?7V-D96-L(&]P=&5R





M3$E"('=C<W1O;&0H8V]N<W0 =V-H87)?=" J+"!W8VAA<E]T("HJ*3L-"FQO


M:&%R7W0 *BP =V-H87)?=" J*BP :6YT*3L-"FQO;F< ;&]N9R!?7T-,24( 



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


M87)C:&5N=BAC;VYS="!W8VAA<E]T("HL(&-O;G-T('=C:&%R7W0 *BP =V-H

M7W0 *BP =V-H87)?=" J+"!W8VAA<E]T("HL('=C:&%R7W0 *BP =V-H87)?
M=" J*3L-"B-D969I;F4 :71O=R!?:71O=PT*(V1E9FEN92!L=&]W(%]L=&]W


`
end
Aug 29 2001
parent reply Laurentiu Pancescu <plaur crosswinds.net> writes:
Thanks, Walter!

It works fine for that small test program.  NASM still won't
compile in ANSI mode, because of those pointer conversions, and,
if I use -Jm in addition to -A, it cannot compile stdlib.h,
because wchar_t is unknown.

Why does DM consider that converting "void (*)()" to "void
(*)(int, FILE *)" is illegal in ANSI mode?  It should only emit
warnings, not errors, IMHO.  BTW, gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
doesn't even emit warnings for those implicit conversions, and
neither does Borland's bcc 5.5.1...  I know that using this kind of
implicit conversions is not recommended, but it's legal ANSI-C
code, isn't it?


Laurentiu Pancescu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


I've attached a fixed stdlib.h. Try it with that one. -Walter
Aug 31 2001
parent reply "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Why does it need to be compiled with -A?

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9moio6$5mo$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

Thanks, Walter!

It works fine for that small test program.  NASM still won't
compile in ANSI mode, because of those pointer conversions, and,
if I use -Jm in addition to -A, it cannot compile stdlib.h,
because wchar_t is unknown.

Why does DM consider that converting "void (*)()" to "void
(*)(int, FILE *)" is illegal in ANSI mode?  It should only emit
warnings, not errors, IMHO.  BTW, gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic
doesn't even emit warnings for those implicit conversions, and
neither does Borland's bcc 5.5.1...  I know that using this kind of
implicit conversions is not recommended, but it's legal ANSI-C
code, isn't it?


Laurentiu Pancescu

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


I've attached a fixed stdlib.h. Try it with that one. -Walter
Aug 31 2001
parent reply Laurentiu Pancescu <plaur crosswinds.net> writes:
"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


Why does it need to be compiled with -A?


Actually, I don't think it really *needs* that... I
successfully compiled it without -A, and I ran it without any problems. 
NASM's authors claim that NASM can be compiled with any ANSI-C
compliant compiler, and even more, for most compilers, they
disable extensions and enforce strict ANSI-C mode.

It was important for me because when you write a console-mode
program, and want it to be really portable, you try to stick to
strict ANSI (be it C or C++).  The -A switch is very useful
from this point of view, and I just wanted to test DM's ANSI-C
compliance with something non-trivial...  :)

Do you expect there will be another patch version after 8.1c?

Thanks again,
  Laurentiu
Sep 01 2001
parent "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:
Ok, I'm just glad you got NASM to work and this issue isn't blocking you.
There's already an 8.1d patch, but it doesn't address the void cast
problem. -Walter

Laurentiu Pancescu wrote in message <9mq7h3$186k$1 digitaldaemon.com>...

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote:


Why does it need to be compiled with -A?


Actually, I don't think it really *needs* that... I
successfully compiled it without -A, and I ran it without any problems.
NASM's authors claim that NASM can be compiled with any ANSI-C
compliant compiler, and even more, for most compilers, they
disable extensions and enforce strict ANSI-C mode.

It was important for me because when you write a console-mode
program, and want it to be really portable, you try to stick to
strict ANSI (be it C or C++).  The -A switch is very useful
from this point of view, and I just wanted to test DM's ANSI-C
compliance with something non-trivial...  :)

Do you expect there will be another patch version after 8.1c?

Thanks again,
  Laurentiu
Sep 01 2001