Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A Famous Security Bug
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:58:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <utrebt$102ht$2@dont-email.me>
References: <bug-20240320191736@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <20240320114218.151@kylheku.com>
 <20240321211306.779b21d126e122556c34a346@gmail.moc>
 <utkea9$31sr2$1@dont-email.me> <utktul$35ng8$1@dont-email.me>
 <utm06k$3glqc$1@dont-email.me> <utme8b$3jtip$1@dont-email.me>
 <utn1a0$3ogob$1@dont-email.me> <utnh5m$3sdhk$1@dont-email.me>
 <utpenn$dtnq$1@dont-email.me> <utq0gh$i9hm$1@dont-email.me>
 <87sf0fxsm0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <utqbo0$kvt3$1@dont-email.me>
 <20240325023947.00006752@yahoo.com> <utqmip$na54$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:58:38 +0100
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2dfca81a44a56ad8330df2d5529ac06b";
	logging-data="1051197"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tJdNGdtMZ4SH4riH/9/0XP+8eIsT47mY="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w/rOB+XNp2//OgtdWMK7Bl5dH3I=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <utqmip$na54$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3876

On 25/03/2024 03:12, bart wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 23:39, Michael S wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:07:44 +0000
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/03/2024 20:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> But what people want are the conveniences and familiarity of a HLL,
>>>>> without the bloody-mindedness of an optimising C compiler.
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Exactly which people want that?
>>>>
>>>> The evidence suggests that, while some people undoubtedly want that
>>>> (and it's a perfectly legitimate desire), there isn't enough demand
>>>> to induce anyone to actually produce such a thing and for it to
>>>> catch on. Developers have had decades to define and implement the
>>>> kind of language you're talking about.  Why haven't they?
>>> Perhaps many settle for using C but using a lesser C compiler or one
>>> with optimisation turned off.
>>>
>>
>> What is "lesser C compiler"?
>> Something like IAR ? Yes, people use it.
>> Something like TI? People use it when they have no other choice.
>> 20 years ago there were Diab Data, Kiel and few others. I didn't hear
>> about them lately.
>> Microchip, I'd guess, still has its own compilers for many of their
>> families, but that's because they have to. "Bigger" compilers dont want
>> to support this chips.
>> On the opposite edge of scale, IBM has compilers for their mainframes
>> and for POWER/AIX. The former are used widely. The later are quickly
>> losing to "bigger' compilers running on the same platform.
> 
>> As to tcc, mcc, lccwin etc... those only used by hobbyists.
> 
> AFAIK lccwin can be used commercially.

"/Can/ be used commercially" does not imply "/is/ used professionally". 
I'm sure there are some people who use it in their work, but I would 
expect that in any statistics about compiler usage, it would be in the 
"Others < 0.1%" category.

> I guess you mean companies using big tools and big ecosystems that need 
> equally big compilers to go with them.
> 
> I mainly use, and develop, small, nippy tools and would rate them above 
> above any of the big, glossy ones.
> 

Then you use a different rating system than the vast majority of 
professionals.  That, of course, is your free choice to make - just 
don't be surprised when others disagree with you.