RE: [Dev-C++] BC++, gcc and Win98SE shell

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Good morning,</P>
<P>I guess I am just restating what the other two gentlemen already have...but to me, it sounds like more of a discrepancy within the two compilers rather than something wrong with the Win98 Shell.</P>
<P>Exactly what that discrepancy is, I do not know.&nbsp; As for which is performing correctly...I'm not sure that is a valid statement or question...it really depends on what the programmer's intention is...and I would say that they are both performing correctly, perhaps just not as expected since they give different results.</P>
<P>Anyway, just my two cents worth.&nbsp; Have a great day!</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=2>Benjamin Wheeless</FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=2><STRONG>Network Systems - Delta Airlines, Inc.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Atlanta, GA - USA 30320</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>==============================</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>----Original Message Follows---- 
<DIV></DIV>From: gi...@li... 
<DIV></DIV>To: dev...@so... 
<DIV></DIV>Subject: RE: [Dev-C++] BC++, gcc and Win98SE shell 
<DIV></DIV>Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 23:37:51 +0100 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Sorry for my previous post, it was not very clear. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Let me try again. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The test program is, this time, a little different: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>/* echo.c */ 
<DIV></DIV>#include <STDIO.H>
<DIV></DIV>int main(int argc, char *argv[]) 
<DIV></DIV>{ 
<DIV></DIV>while (--argc &gt; 0) 
<DIV></DIV>printf("%s%s", *++argv, (argc &gt; 1) ? " ": ""); 
<DIV></DIV>printf("\n"); 
<DIV></DIV>return 0; 
<DIV></DIV>} 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>IMHO the above is more or less equivalent to the program I posted before 
<DIV></DIV>but I changed in the hope that Ioannis won't yell at me this time :-) 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Anyway the program is not the point, it is just a mean to show that: 
<DIV></DIV>when I use a program compiled by gcc, it seems that the shell expands 
<DIV></DIV>wildcards before invoking the program (as it should always be), instead 
<DIV></DIV>when I compile the same program using BC++, the shell does not expand the 
<DIV></DIV>wildcards. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>To prove it, what I did was: 
<DIV></DIV>1. create a directory named c:\temp 
<DIV></DIV>2. used the program "touch" (a Borland tool) to create: c:\temp\foo.c and 
<DIV></DIV>c:\temp\bar.c 
<DIV></DIV>3. switched to the directory c:\temp 
<DIV></DIV>4. issued the command: echo_g *.c 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The ouput of the command was: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>bar.c foo.c 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>This means that the shell expanded "*.c" into "bar.c foo.c", the two 
<DIV></DIV>arguments were then echoed by the program "echo_g" (where the "_g" means 
<DIV></DIV>compiled using gcc). 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Instead if I use the version of echo compiled by BC++ (named "echo_b.exe"), 
<DIV></DIV>that is, when step #4 becomes: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>4. issued the command: echo_b *.c 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The output is: 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>*.c 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>This means that the shell did not expand "*.c". Or, if you prefer, I have 
<DIV></DIV>the same ANSI C89 program give two different outputs, according to which 
<DIV></DIV>compiler was used to build the executable. I have no explanation for this, 
<DIV></DIV>other than there is some bug in the shell. 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>My questions are 
<DIV></DIV>1. Why is the Windows shell (or command.com, if you prefer) acting 
<DIV></DIV>differently? 
<DIV></DIV>2. Is this happening on my Win98SE or is it happening on other versions of 
<DIV></DIV>Windows too? 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>At 18:45 24/02/02 +0200, Ioannis Vranos wrote: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; -----Original Message----- 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; From: dev...@li... 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; [mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Of gi...@li... 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 5:03 PM 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; To: dev...@so... 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Subject: [Dev-C++] BC++, gcc and Win98SE shell 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Hello list, 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; here is one, funny, thing of which I have no explanation: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; consider the following program: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; /* echo.c */ 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; #include <STDIO.H>
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; int 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; main(int argc, char **argv) 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; { 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; while (--argc) 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; This decreases the number reported, which has no effect. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; printf("%s ", *++argv); 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Here you printf *after* you increment, that is you lose the first 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;string. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Now something delicate. argc is *not* guaranteed to be one if you do 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;not 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;pass any argument. It is guaranteed that if you pass an argument 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;then it 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;will be non zero and argv[0] will be the name of the program itself. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;In 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;few words, if you do not pass any name it is not guaranteed that 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;argv[0] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;contains the name of the program. As the C++ standard says: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;"An implementation shall not predefine the main function. This 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;function 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;shall not be overloaded. It shall 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;have a return type of type int, but otherwise its type is 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;implementationdefined. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;All implementations 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;shall allow both of the following definitions of main: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;int main() { /* ... */ } 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;and 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ } 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;In the latter form argc shall be the number of arguments passed to 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;program from the environment in 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;which the program is run. If argc is nonzero these arguments shall 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;be 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;supplied in argv[0] through 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;argv[argc1] 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;as pointers to the initial characters of nullterminated 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;multibyte strings (NTMBSs) 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;(17.3.2.1.3.2) and argv[0] shall be the pointer to the initial 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;character 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;of a NTMBS that represents the 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;name used to invoke the program or "". The value of argc shall be 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;nonnegative. The value of 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;argv[argc] shall be 0. [Note: it is recommended that any further 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;(optional) parameters be added after 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;argv. ]". 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;This is exactly the same for ANSI C89 and C99 too. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; return 0; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; } 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; I compiled it using: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; GNU gcc 2.95 shipped with Dev-C++ (gcc -o echo_g.exe echo.c) 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; BC++ 5.5 of thge "Borland free command line tools" (bcc32 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;-eecho_b.exe 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; echo.c). 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Then I've "touched" the files "foo.c" and "bar.c" and tried 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; the following: 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; command output 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; echo_g *.c bar.c foo.c 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; echo_b *.c *.c 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; All of this on Win98SE. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Is there somebody that can tell what is going on? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; &gt; Is this bug(?) common to the shell of other Windows systems too? 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;I do not understand what you did. 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;Ioannis 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;* Ioannis Vranos 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.d2g.com 
<DIV></DIV>&gt;* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys 
<DIV></DIV>&gt; 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>-- 
<DIV></DIV>gisan 
<DIV></DIV>gi...@li... 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________ 
<DIV></DIV>Dev-cpp-users mailing list 
<DIV></DIV>Dev...@li... 
<DIV></DIV>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dev-cpp-users 
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag2_etl_EN.asp'>Click Here</a><br></html>

RE: [Dev-C++] BC++, gcc and Win98SE shell

Open Source C & C++ IDE for Windows

RE: [Dev-C++] BC++, gcc and Win98SE shell