Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:40:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <vrtq62$2unrb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrd77d$3nvtf$2@dont-email.me> <vreve4$19klp$2@dont-email.me>
 <20250319201903.00005452@yahoo.com> <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vrh1br$35029$2@dont-email.me> <LRUCP.2$541.0@fx47.iad>
 <vrh71t$3be42$1@dont-email.me> <874izntt5t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrhviu$h5c$1@dont-email.me> <87ecyrs332.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vri9t1$a29t$1@dont-email.me> <20250320171505.221@kylheku.com>
 <vrif1v$c9ev$3@dont-email.me> <8734f7rw7z.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrjjvb$1esjh$1@dont-email.me> <87tt7mqk7w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrkvt5$2k04q$2@dont-email.me> <87cye9afl0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrmckn$114k$1@dont-email.me> <871puoag2q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrnoft$15f6n$1@dont-email.me> <vrrh0c$qila$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrouo$11up7$1@dont-email.me> <vrrqe0$12u8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrs20$14vob$1@dont-email.me> <vrrvnh$176lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs0j5$191gt$1@dont-email.me> <vrs2eu$176lu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrs2r3$1b0ov$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs7oi$1e2j7$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 09:40:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c549ec488b733e1d16304095061b18c7";
	logging-data="3104619"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+iFNdOICeAfKRBRTXt1DJY"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OkgfdLIn/afw7wcUVXKO+JV8Ebk=
Bytes: 4113

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 18:20:02 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>On 24/03/2025 16:56, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> No, because unlike you I understand the concept of splitting into modules
>> and having a makefile that just rebuilds whats changed, not the entire
>> codebase.
>
>I said the project used 30 modules. The generated C version is a single 
>module. In that form, it allows gcc to perform whole-program 

And there's your problem. And FWIW you don't need a single source file for
whole program optimisation you muppet.

>> No it isn't. THat example I gave you built in 0.8 seconds. It would make
>> zero difference to me if it took 8 or 80.
>
>Really? It could take 80 seconds extra and you would just sit there and 
>take it? Boy you must really like stopping at red lights then.

So you never stop, you're coding 100% of the time without a break? Actually
I can believe that, you sound a bit obsessive. Still, in that 80 secs I'd
spend some of it replying to you. Then in the other 70 secs I'd read the news.

>> In the case of Python they tolerate hopeless performance so who knows.
>
>Perhaps they're sensible enough to use Python where that is not 
>relevant. However when they make a change, they want to see the results 
>NOW. They wouldn't even understand why there need be any delay.

Umm, no. And FWIW any program thats not some toy plaything that you write will
probably do things like connecting to a DB/server etc which will take its own
time anyway so very little is immediate.

>> Says the guy who rebuilds everything from scratch each time.
>
>You're seriously suggesting I should use a makefile so that I can save 
>0.065 seconds by only compiling one module?

Who knows what difference it would make with your toy language. I really
don't care either.

>For that matter, why do YOU use a makefile when your full build is only 
>0.8 seconds?

Modularising code is far more than just about compilation speed which you'd
know if you had anything approaching a clue.

>Fast compilers and also whole-program compilers open up lots of new 
>possibilities. But clearly you're quite happy being stuck in the stone age.

The stone age is where they used one huge source file for a program.