131–140 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C does not have the feature (yet), it is not about being difficult or not.
The fact that C doesn't have the feature makes it difficult if I want to perform that task!
Like all the other features C has been missing for the last 30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the section on search paths… It follows the same implementation experience guidelines as #include by leaving the search paths implementation defined, with the understand that implementations are not monsters and will generally provide… Really? We are going to "understand that implementations are not monsters" after what they've done with "undefined"? I think maybe these standards should be written from the perspec…
May I ask what's wrong with using xxd? I don't have an opinion about C, but C++ is already pretty complicated, and adding features to the language when there are already well-known solutions doesn't seem wise. (For the record, I'm aware that there are size limitation when using xxd, but there are also other solutions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you do that you could also do base64 ;)
But you can’t? Base64 won’t be recognized by the C compiler, you’ll end up having to decode it at runtime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can sort the array during program initialization, if you care about the order.
It's probably already in link order. If you have to know the names of the symbols in code to be able to sort them, it sort of defeats the purpose of the scheme in the first place.
For example, the FreeBSD kernel's use of this construct embeds a well-defined priority[1], and the array is sorted by this priority value at boot time.[2]
[1]: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/sys/kerne...
[2]: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/master/sys/kern/init...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C does not have the feature (yet), it is not about being difficult or not.
The fact that C doesn't have the feature makes it difficult if I want to perform that task!
The C standard has been very cautious about adding features that would make the standard and the compilers more complex since it is the lingua franca of computing.
Nowadays there is really just a handful of archs in use and their compilers are all backends for GCC/LLVM, so they are relaxing a bit the gating of features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the section on search paths… It follows the same implementation experience guidelines as #include by leaving the search paths implementation defined, with the understand that implementations are not monsters and will generally provide… Really? We are going to "understand that implementations are not monsters" after what they've done with "undefined"? I think maybe these standards should be written from the perspec…
May I ask what's wrong with using xxd? I don't have an opinion about C, but C++ is already pretty complicated, and adding features to the language when there are already well-known solutions doesn't seem wise. (For the record, I'm aware that there are size limitation when using xxd, but there are also other solutions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can’t? Base64 won’t be recognized by the C compiler, you’ll end up having to decode it at runtime.
yep. That's a small piece of c-code you need to invest. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/342409/how-do-i-base64-e...
I’ll take the simple, fast, and easy solution, thank you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I ask what's wrong with using xxd? I don't have an opinion about C, but C++ is already pretty complicated, and adding features to the language when there are already well-known solutions doesn't seem wise. (For the record, I'm aware that there are size limitation when using xxd, but there are also other solutions).
Windows doesn't ship it, so now your build system got even more complicated on Windows.