Author Topic: optional parameters  (Read 105 times)

jcfuller

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
optional parameters
« on: February 10, 2020, 08:15:01 AM »
Kevin/Robert
  I did not notice any mention that PellesC is the only "C" compiler that can with 100% accuracy compile Bcx translated "c" code. It was one of the reasons I started the bc9 fork, only to be informed by Mr Bcx there was a utility to do just that. Oh well :). I actually did not get all the runtime libraries converted so I always run InsertOptArg before compiling. And now I cannot remember who the author is. It's not in the source I have.

James


 

Robert

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
Re: optional parameters
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2020, 10:05:22 AM »
Kevin/Robert
  I did not notice any mention that PellesC is the only "C" compiler that can with 100% accuracy compile Bcx translated "c" code. It was one of the reasons I started the bc9 fork, only to be informed by Mr Bcx there was a utility to do just that. Oh well :). I actually did not get all the runtime libraries converted so I always run InsertOptArg before compiling. And now I cannot remember who the author is. It's not in the source I have.

James

I.I.R.C. you once said Mike Henning was the author.

I just looked and found an InsertOptArgs.zip in a 2015 folder of your UBX code. In there it is stated

'InsertOppArg. Original code by Mike Henning

MrBcx

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 264
    • View Profile
Re: optional parameters
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2020, 10:15:29 AM »
The author was Mike Henning ... he and I were investigating Tcc at the time.

I gave up on Tcc due to its outdated and incomplete Windows headers/libraries.



Regarding your snark about Pelles C, you must be unaware or simply ignoring a lot of BCX history.

Most notably, given your fascination with wanting BCX to be a BASIC to C++ Translator.

In fact, during most of its life, BCX was advertised as a BASIC to C Translator (See exhibits a & b)

It was not until version 6 rolled around that some misguided person or persons decided it needed
to be called a C/C++ Translator.   

C and C++ are two distinct languages with some common DNA.

To say BCX is a C++ Translator is misleading, at best.  Closer to the truth would be to describe
BCX as a BASIC to C Translator that relies upon several C++ features provided as extensions
by some C compilers.  And furthermore,  BCX can consume a subset of C++ specific
language features, tolerates a subset of C++ specific language syntax, and can be made to emit
a subset of compliant C++ specific code.