The C Book (HTML Book on C)

Post by aarongough » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 5:01 PM UTC

jfr wrote: post #10

aarongough wrote: post #6

Awesome timing. I'm just starting to contemplate porting the prototype VM i'm working on to C. Thanks Mahmud! You seem to be coming to the rescue often these days :-p

The book is from 1991, almost 20 years ago. There is a lot of outdated information. You should perhaps look for something more recent, that covers C99 and features commonly found on current compilers.

Post by telemachos » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 5:25 PM UTC

    # implied int; implied void
    main() {
        # whatever
        exit(0) # or EXIT_SUCCESS
    }

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 5:58 PM UTC

johnswamps wrote: post #14

telemachos wrote: post #13

A quick question: the book (at least early on) advocates this for main: # implied int; implied void main() { # whatever exit(0) # or EXIT_SUCCESS } Is this simply a stylistic choice (rather than a more explicit int main(void) and return(0) ). I'm mostly curious, but I know that how to deal with main can be a sacred cow. Edit : And sure enough clang (by default) and gcc (with -Wall ) both issue warnings.

The book was written 20 years ago, before the C99 spec was released. main() was acceptable but discouraged in C89, which is why -Wall (or more precisely -Wimplicit-int) displays a warning. It's disallowed by the C99 spec and will always give you a warning.

Post by jfr » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 6:35 PM UTC

aarongough wrote: post #11

jfr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is from 1991, almost 20 years ago. There is a lot of outdated information. You should perhaps look for something more recent, that covers C99 and features commonly found on current compilers.

Thanks for the heads-up. Is C really that different now that I need to worry about it? I have done some work in C++ before, but that was many years ago and I've grown accustomed to high-level languages...

    main(){
      /* ... */
    }

Post by woadwarrior01 » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 8:02 PM UTC

aarongough wrote: post #11

jfr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book is from 1991, almost 20 years ago. There is a lot of outdated information. You should perhaps look for something more recent, that covers C99 and features commonly found on current compilers.

Thanks for the heads-up. Is C really that different now that I need to worry about it? I have done some work in C++ before, but that was many years ago and I've grown accustomed to high-level languages...