3 ms·

Sure, if by "fairly recent" you mean at least more than twenty years ago: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=1853 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs

by jomar 13y ago

Sure, if by "fairly recent" you mean at least more than twenty years ago: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=1853 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=1853

csmuk 13y ago
That's GCC. Some of us were blessed with commercial compilers.
weland 13y ago
GCC isn't the only compiler on the planet :-). Other compilers either started doing it more recently, or not at all. The construct it most often warns about is fairly idiomatic on Unix platforms, but not everywhere, so a lot of vendors were not quite as bothered about it.
- jomar 13y ago
  GCC is indeed not the only compiler around, which is why I said "at least" :-) Even if you're stuck with some other compiler for production builds, it's handy to be compiling regularly with a variety of compilers so as to benefit from the union of the diagnostic abilities of all of them. The construct is a useful idiom, but oftentimes there would be or ought to be a local coding standard recommending that you make what you're doing explicit by comparing the assignment result to the appropriate flavour of zero: if ((foo = bar) != NULL) Now everybody can see what's going on, the warning doesn't arise, and no pedants can complain about the theoretically-unnecesary parentheses in `if ((foo = bar))`.
  - weland 13y ago
    > GCC is indeed not the only compiler around, which is why I said "at least" :-) Even if you're stuck with some other compiler for production builds, it's handy to be compiling regularly with a variety of compilers so as to benefit from the union of the diagnostic abilities of all of them. In my case, at least one of the compilers in question was for the 8051, the platform that won't fucking die. Due to the peculiarities of the aforementioned piece of silicon crap, the compiler was not entirely ANSI-compliant (various #pragmas were actually required to produce working code, indicating various parameters related to memory organisation and the such), thus making it rather difficult to compile the codebase with anything but that particular compiler. > The construct is a useful idiom, but oftentimes there would be or ought to be a local coding standard recommending that you make what you're doing explicit by comparing the assignment result to the appropriate flavour of zero This is the solution I adhere to as well.

by jomar 13y ago

Sure, if by "fairly recent" you mean at least more than twenty years ago: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=1853 http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=1853

csmuk 13y ago

That's GCC. Some of us were blessed with commercial compilers.

weland 13y ago

GCC isn't the only compiler on the planet :-). Other compilers either started doing it more recently, or not at all. The construct it most often warns about is fairly idiomatic on Unix platforms, but not everywhere, so a lot of vendors were not quite as bothered about it.

jomar 13y ago
GCC is indeed not the only compiler around, which is why I said "at least" :-) Even if you're stuck with some other compiler for production builds, it's handy to be compiling regularly with a variety of compilers so as to benefit from the union of the diagnostic abilities of all of them. The construct is a useful idiom, but oftentimes there would be or ought to be a local coding standard recommending that you make what you're doing explicit by comparing the assignment result to the appropriate flavour of zero: if ((foo = bar) != NULL) Now everybody can see what's going on, the warning doesn't arise, and no pedants can complain about the theoretically-unnecesary parentheses in `if ((foo = bar))`.
- weland 13y ago
  > GCC is indeed not the only compiler around, which is why I said "at least" :-) Even if you're stuck with some other compiler for production builds, it's handy to be compiling regularly with a variety of compilers so as to benefit from the union of the diagnostic abilities of all of them. In my case, at least one of the compilers in question was for the 8051, the platform that won't fucking die. Due to the peculiarities of the aforementioned piece of silicon crap, the compiler was not entirely ANSI-compliant (various #pragmas were actually required to produce working code, indicating various parameters related to memory organisation and the such), thus making it rather difficult to compile the codebase with anything but that particular compiler. > The construct is a useful idiom, but oftentimes there would be or ought to be a local coding standard recommending that you make what you're doing explicit by comparing the assignment result to the appropriate flavour of zero This is the solution I adhere to as well.