DOS ain't dead

LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? (Developers)

posted by RayeR , CZ, 09.09.2011, 19:44

BTW do you know if LLVM/Clang support runtime array bound check?
I cannot find this. But for good clang have some static bound check and display such nice warning:

C:\LLVM>clang hello.c
hello.c:10:3: warning: array index of '10' indexes past the end of an array
      (that contains 10 elements) [-Warray-bounds]
  b[10]=0;
  ^ ~~
hello.c:4:1: note: array 'b' declared here
char b[10];
^
1 warning generated.

but if you do

  char c=9;
  b[c+1]=0;

it will pass. I think I don't make such stupid mistakes so it will not help like runtime check...

---
DOS gives me freedom to unlimited HW access.

Complete thread:

• LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 08.09.2011, 22:41
  • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - Rugxulo, 08.09.2011, 23:01
    • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 09.09.2011, 01:29
      • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 09.09.2011, 01:34
        • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - Rugxulo, 09.09.2011, 05:44
          • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - marcov, 09.09.2011, 19:07
            • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 09.09.2011, 19:44
            • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - Rugxulo, 10.09.2011, 23:34
              • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - marcov, 11.09.2011, 02:33
                • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 12.09.2011, 13:46
                • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - Rugxulo, 13.09.2011, 01:53
              • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 12.09.2011, 13:30
                • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - Rugxulo, 13.09.2011, 02:00
                  • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? - RayeR, 14.09.2011, 01:25
  • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - DOS386, 09.09.2011, 18:41
    • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - RayeR, 09.09.2011, 19:38
      • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - DOS386, 11.09.2011, 08:13
        • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - RayeR, 12.09.2011, 13:16
          • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - DOS386, 13.09.2011, 07:34
            • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - RayeR, 13.09.2011, 19:50
              • LLVM for DOS/DJGPP? | DEATH of GCC - RayeR, 14.09.2011, 10:36