Re: question about linker

On 04/12/2024 19:47, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 04.12.2024 13:08, David Brown wrote:

Sure.  And it is certainly /possible/ to know all the small details of C
without ever reading the standards.  But it's quite unlikely.

 The question is (IMO) not so much to know "all" and even "all small"
details. Even in a language like "C" (that I'd consider to be fairly
incoherent if compared to other languages' design) you can get all
"important" language properties (including details) from textbooks.
 If cases where that is different, the standards documents - which
have their very own special way of being written - would be even
less comprehensibly as they (inherently) already are. - That said
from a programmer's POV (not from the language implementors').
 I look into language standards only if I want to confirm/falsify
an implementation; in this case I'm taking the role of a language
implementor (not a programmer). Personally I do that anyway only
rarely, for specific languages only, and just out of academical
interest.
 

[...]
Bart is an expert at thinking up things in C that confuse him.

 Well, that's an own topic. - Where I was really astonished was the
statement of being confused about the braces/semicolons, which is
so fundamental (and primitive) but technically just a detail that
I'd thought it should be clear

OK, if it's so simple, explain it to me.
Apparently the first line here needs a semicolon after }, the second doesn't:
   int X[1] = {0};
   void Y() {}
Similarly here:
   if (x) y;
   if (x) {}
Why?
"Because that's what the grammar says" isn't a valid answer.
The C language is one of the most quirky ones around full of apparently ridiculous things. Why shouldn't you be able to write this for example:
    {
    ....
    L:
    }
This stupid rule means that EVERY label in my generated code needs to be written as L:; instead of just L:
Please don't say the label is only defined to be a prefix to another statement. I asking why it was done like that.