Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C, really portable?

Reply
Thread Tools

C, really portable?

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2005
Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) writes
>>pemo wrote:
>>> Is C really portable?

>>
>>No. The standard embodies a portable syntax which exists as subset of
>>any compliant compiler, but that's exactly as meaningless as you might
>>suspect it is. For example, I don't believe there exists any pair of C
>>compilers from different vendors that have exact source space
>>compatibility.
>>
>>> [...] And, apologies, but this is possibly a little OT?

>>
>>Well C.L.C. is a group about ANSI standard C.

>
> No. It is about ISO C


I might have written "Yes. it is about ISO C".

As everyone here probably knows by now, the original C standard was
issued by ANSI in 1989. ISO adopted it (with some changes like
renumbering the sections) in 1990; ANSI, as the US member of ISO,
adopted the ISO standard. The current standard is the 1999 ISO
standard, which is also recognized by ANSI. (And there have been a
couple of technical corrigenda since then.) I suppose it's debatable
whether C99 can properly be referred to as "ANSI C", but it's not
interestingly debatable.

The term "ANSI C" is used colloquially to refer to the 1989 standard
(the term became popular while the standard was still being developed,
and it stuck). Discussion of the language defined by the 1989 ANSI C
standard is topical here. So, I would say, is discussion of the
pre-ANSI version of the language defined by K&R1, and even earlier
versions from before that.

IMHO, YMMV, HAND.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Gamble
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2005
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) writes
> >pemo wrote:
> >> Is C really portable?

> >
> >No. The standard embodies a portable syntax which exists as subset of
> >any compliant compiler, but that's exactly as meaningless as you might
> >suspect it is. For example, I don't believe there exists any pair of C
> >compilers from different vendors that have exact source space
> >compatibility.
> >
> >> [...] And, apologies, but this is possibly a little OT?

> >
> >Well C.L.C. is a group about ANSI standard C.

>
> No. It is about ISO C


What is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that only the latest
version of C is topical here or that neither verion of the Standard is
correctly referred to as ANSI C? The original standard was created by
ANSI and adopted by ISO, the latest verion was created by ISO and
adopted by ANSI so I don't see your point if that was your argument.

Robert Gamble

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
really interesting... or really dull. (depends on your attitude) TrevorBoydSmith@gmail.com Java 2 09-01-2006 04:38 PM
OT : But help really really needed re: Domain Name selling, hosting etc. problem nc HTML 1 02-03-2005 07:24 PM
REALLY REALLY WERID PROBLEM!!!!pls take a look Amir ASP .Net 3 01-23-2004 06:01 PM
really really mysterious IE6 problem--secure site ultraviolet353 Computer Support 7 11-22-2003 07:56 PM
MR. ED REALLY, REALLY LOVES THE D60 !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 9 10-28-2003 04:53 PM



Advertisments