[Info-vax] VAX Macro to C conversion

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/11/19 1:43 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-07-11, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/10/19 9:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>> "The language understood by the Safe C Compiler is identical
>>>    to that understood by the standard C compilers."
>>>
>>> But, it had a lot of the checks people here keep arguing that C
>>> needs.  Array indexing, Stray Pointers, mismatched formal and
>>> actual parameters, Misuse of string functions, etc.
>>>
> 
> What is the most recent C compiler you have used ?

How recent is the current version of GCC?

> 
> All C compilers I know of complain about mismatched parameters
> and gcc complains about mismatched format string arguments.

That's what I meant about trivial additions by ANSI.

> 
> As for the other stuff, here's one example:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AddressSanitizer
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Instrumentation-Options.html
> 
>>> And the industry rejected it completely.  None of its features
>>> ever showed up in C Compilers that followed.
>>>
>>> So, tell me, why did none of these things find their way into
>>> the VMS C Compilers?
>>
>> You know, makes one wonder.  Why did ANSI change so much trivial
>> stuff when the modified K&R to create ANSI-C and not fix any of
>> these supposed shortcomings?
>>
>> Why did VMS versions of C not fix any of this?  There is nothing
>> in the language that prevents range checking or array boundaries.
>> Why do people continue to complain and yet no one "fixes" stuff
>> that was actually fixed over 40 years ago?
>>
> 
> AddressSanitizer will hopefully work on x86-64 VMS as well.
> 

That is not a change to the compiler.  Lint used to point
out a lot of potential problems but I knew few people other
than myself who ever actually used it.  If the compiler
lets it bad code will continue to come out of the mill.

bill