IOC is inside Clang-head

[H. S. Teoh]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:36:06AM +0100, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 19:21:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >Even worse is all the millions of man-hours wasted in (usually
> >incorrectly) trying to make C code portable to theoretical C
> >compilers that have ints larger than 32 bits, etc., trying to
> >ensure that modern C code will work on a 16 bit C compiler, and on
> >and on.
> >
> >By defining these problems out of existence, D achieves a major
> >simplification in terms of programming bugs that are far more
> >theoretical than real.
> 
> You know, defining a problem out of existence is a damn good way of
> solving the problem!

The point was that these problems are by and large non-problems. Even
where these issues are applicable, people are already not using stock C
compilers anyway, so it's pointless to address them in the general case.

If you're somewhat familiar with the details of the C standard, you'll
realize that a laughably large percentage of C code currently in use is
actually invalid C (either due to undefined behaviour, or incorrect
reliance on sizeof(char)==1, or a whole bunch of other obscure rules
that most C programmers aren't even aware of). Even some of the most
portable C code out there is actually non-portable according to the
standard.


T

-- 
Those who've learned LaTeX swear by it. Those who are learning LaTeX swear at it. -- Pete Bleackley