Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 12:27:52 09/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2004 at 11:49:57, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On September 22, 2004 at 10:55:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >A code that complies with ANSI C should compile with default compiler options. >The warnings should be put in form of warnings, not errors. As an example, a few months ago when I compiled my program with gcc on Linux, I got the unsafe warning regarding "gets". It was nice to know that this function is unsafe, and I wish MSVC would have generated similar warning. However, I didn't have time to investigate the function at the time (being sure that I used it correctly). A few days later, I studied gets in more detail and found that in some parts of my program replacing it with fgets would be better. However, had I seen that the compiler refused to compile my original code because of an "unsafe" gets, I would be wondering what the hell is wrong with this compiler that cannot compile a code perfectly complying with ANSI/ISO C. > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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.