Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:55:42 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 07:53:03, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 01:36:40, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On September 21, 2004 at 17:35:48, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On September 21, 2004 at 11:54:25, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>On September 21, 2004 at 04:26:22, GeoffW wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi >>>>> >>>>>I thought I would download the new : Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition beta to >>>>>have a tinker with. It is proving trickier than expected to get my chess program >>>>>to compile and run. Any help and tips would be appreciated please >>>>> >>>>>Q1 >>>>>This is not a stopper but would like an explanation >>>>> >>>>>warning C4996: 'sprintf' was declared deprecated >>>>> D:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\include\stdio.h(285) : see >>>>>declaration of 'sprintf' >>>>> >>>>>I am getting this deprecated warning on lots of standard C function calls ? How >>>>>can a standard C function be possibly not supported in the future ? >>>>>Unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of deprecated ? >>>> >>>>sprintf() is unsafe due to at least 2 reasons: >>>>* possible buffer overrun, >>>>* there is no runtime arguments type checks. >>>> >>>>I doubt it ever will be eliminated as it is part of the standard, but it's >>>>possible that in the future you'll have to use special compiler command-line >>>>option to be able to use it. E.g. something like -Unsecure. >>>> >>>>We are shipping Secure C Run-Time library as part of VS 2005. >>> >>>What about the "programmer always knows what he is doing" philosophy of C? Using >>>an "-Unsecure" flag to compile C is kind of funny, as the whole C language is >>>"unsecure"... >> >>So you think C compiler should never emit warnings? After all, "programmer >>always knows what he is doing", so compiler should just silently compile the >>source, right? > >Giving warnings is all right. Quite to the contrary in fact, I believe the more >the warnings, the better. My problem is not with the warnings, but with the >"-Unsecure" flag. I don't think it is logical that a correctly written C code >would not compile, unless some irregular compiler flag is used. It makes more >sense to have a "-Secure" flag, for people who would like to consider those >warnings as errors. > I'd stick with Eugene here. I'd rather get flagged for something that looks suspicious, and have to take explicit action to get away with it, rather than to accept known problematic code unless the user is sophisticated enough to specify that such code should produce a diagnostic. The inexperienced programmer needs all the help he can get. The experienced programmer will already be playing with compiler options for optimization tricks... > >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene >> >>> >>>> >>>>>Q2 >>>>>After having got it to build with some warnings but no errors I hit F5 to run >>>>>but it comes up with the following error >>>>>"The application failed to start because the Application configuration is >>>>>incorrect. Reinstalling the Application may fix this problem ?" >>>>> >>>>>Is it telling me to install my program again, surely it is not telling me to >>>>>reinstall Visual Studio again ? It doesnt give me any furher clues as to what >>>>>the configuration problem might be. I did wonder if having an older version of >>>>>VS on this PC might be screwing it up in some way ? >>>> >>>>Please verify that msvcr80.dll was copied into \windows\system32 directory. >>>>Otherwise I have no ideas, as I am not a "setup person". You can ask a question >>>>or report a bug at http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/vs2005/. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Eugene >>>> >>>>>Thanks for any ideas >>>>> >>>>> Regards Geoff
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.