Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Re: Opinions about a book

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Opinions about a book

 
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2008
arnuld wrote:

> On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>
>>> On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
>>> compiler have implemented it yet ?

>
>> I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.

>
>
> it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports
> the C99 completely( or properly)
>
> ??


The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
90% of C99.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2008
santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[...]
> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
> probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
> that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
> full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
> 90% of C99.


According to
<http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:

The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jean-Marc Bourguet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2008
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> [...]
>> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
>> probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
>> that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
>> full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have implemented about
>> 90% of C99.

>
> According to
> <http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
>
> The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.


At least for C++, it uses the EDG Front End (which is also used as Comeau)
so that's not surprising.

I just wonder if like gcc it simply uses the system library or if it
provides all of it.

A+

--
Jean-Marc
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
In message <g0n1mp$1tc$(E-Mail Removed)>, santosh
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>arnuld wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 03:34:55 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:
>>
>>>> On 6 May, 05:34, arnuld <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> but did any one ask when C99 was released 8 years ago then why no
>>>> compiler have implemented it yet ?

>>
>>> I believe it has been implemented. Perhaps even twice.

>>
>>
>> it has been implemented twice and there is no compiler that supports
>> the C99 completely( or properly)
>>
>> ??

>
>The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
>probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know whether
>that's the only one.


Almost. The reasons being there is no reason to go to C99.

>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
>full C99 hosted implementation.


However they were done AFAIK for political reasons

>Intel and gcc have implemented about
>90% of C99.


Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than the
majority of other compilers out there.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> In message <g0n1mp$1tc$(E-Mail Removed)>, santosh
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes

[...]
>>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
>>full C99 hosted implementation.

>
> However they were done AFAIK for political reasons


Does the reason it was done affect the quality of the implementation?
Or anything else?

>>Intel and gcc have implemented about
>>90% of C99.

>
> Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than
> the majority of other compilers out there.


gcc's C99 status is posted at <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>. I
don't know about the majority of other compilers, but for example I
understand that Microsoft has made very little effort to conform to
C99 beyond "long long" and "//".

I've already posted Intel's statement that their compiler conforms to
C99. I can't confirm it, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> In message <g0n1mp$1tc$(E-Mail Removed)>, santosh
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>[...]
>>>I've heard that the Solaris C compiler is also a
>>>full C99 hosted implementation.

>>
>> However they were done AFAIK for political reasons

>
>Does the reason it was done affect the quality of the implementation?


No idea. It might do.

>Or anything else?


>>>Intel and gcc have implemented about
>>>90% of C99.

>>
>> Not so for Gcc apparently I understand that it is no more C99 than
>> the majority of other compilers out there.

>
>gcc's C99 status is posted at <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>. I
>don't know about the majority of other compilers, but for example I
>understand that Microsoft has made very little effort to conform to
>C99 beyond "long long" and "//".


So what. As M$ will tell you no one they know gives a rats arse about
C99 compatibility. Come to that neither does the vast majority of the
embedded world (which is arguably a much larger users of C than M$ users
are. )

>I've already posted Intel's statement that their compiler conforms to
>C99. I can't confirm it, but I have no particular reason to doubt it.


Me neither. However I can supply about 50 compilers from half a dozen
suppliers and none of them or their customers seem to have any great
interest in C99

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Spiros Bousbouras
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2008
On 5 May, 00:37, Robert Gamble <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I would
> suggest you check out C Programming: A Modern Approach 2nd Edition
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393979504/knking> which just
> came out, focuses completely on C and is a fair bit cheaper than
> Deitel's offering.


It looks interesting. But I find it a bit puzzling
that amazon has a combined offer of the book
with "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art".
 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2008
Keith Thompson wrote:

> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> [...]
>> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
>> probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
>> whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
>> is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
>> implemented about 90% of C99.

>
> According to
> <http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
>
> The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.


But their documentation (which you can access after you install it)
seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:

>>>>>>>>>>>


Conformance to the C Standard

The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard requires
that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation limits. This
compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for minimum
translation limits.
C99 Support

The following C99 features are supported in this version of the Intel
C++ Compiler:

* restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
* variable-length Arrays
* flexible array members
* complex number support (_Complex keyword)
* hexadecimal floating-point constants
* compound literals
* designated initializers
* mixed declarations and code
* macros with a variable number of arguments
* inline functions (inline keyword)
* boolean type (_Bool keyword)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So as you can see Intel's C99 support seems to be less complete than
gcc.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2008
santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> [...]
>>> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library is
>>> probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
>>> whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
>>> is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
>>> implemented about 90% of C99.

>>
>> According to
>> <http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
>>
>> The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
>> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.

>
> But their documentation (which you can access after you install it)
> seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
> from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> Conformance to the C Standard
>
> The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
> for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard requires
> that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation limits. This
> compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for minimum
> translation limits.
> C99 Support
>
> The following C99 features are supported in this version of the Intel
> C++ Compiler:
>
> * restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
> * variable-length Arrays
> * flexible array members
> * complex number support (_Complex keyword)
> * hexadecimal floating-point constants
> * compound literals
> * designated initializers
> * mixed declarations and code
> * macros with a variable number of arguments
> * inline functions (inline keyword)
> * boolean type (_Bool keyword)
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> So as you can see Intel's C99 support seems to be less complete than
> gcc.


Or perhaps the documentation is out of sync with the compiler.

Suggestion: Write a few small programs that use C99-specific features
that aren't in that list, and see if Intel's compiler can handle them.
If not, complain to Intel (there's a "Contact us" link on the web page
I cited above). And if it does, tell them to update their feature
list, or just replace it with a conformance statement.

I'd do it myself, but I don't have the Intel compiler (yes, I know
it's a free download, I just haven't gotten around to it).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2008
Keith Thompson wrote:

> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library
>>>> is probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
>>>> whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
>>>> is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
>>>> implemented about 90% of C99.
>>>
>>> According to
>>> <http://www.intel.com/support/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
>>>
>>> The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
>>> ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.

>>
>> But their documentation (which you can access after you install it)
>> seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
>> from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>
>> Conformance to the C Standard
>>
>> The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
>> for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard
>> requires that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation
>> limits. This compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for
>> minimum translation limits.
>> C99 Support
>>
>> The following C99 features are supported in this version of the Intel
>> C++ Compiler:
>>
>> * restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
>> * variable-length Arrays
>> * flexible array members
>> * complex number support (_Complex keyword)
>> * hexadecimal floating-point constants
>> * compound literals
>> * designated initializers
>> * mixed declarations and code
>> * macros with a variable number of arguments
>> * inline functions (inline keyword)
>> * boolean type (_Bool keyword)
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> So as you can see Intel's C99 support seems to be less complete than
>> gcc.

>
> Or perhaps the documentation is out of sync with the compiler.


It would be amazing for a company with the resources that Intel has to
fail to update the documentation for one of their important software.

> Suggestion: Write a few small programs that use C99-specific features
> that aren't in that list, and see if Intel's compiler can handle them.
> If not, complain to Intel (there's a "Contact us" link on the web page
> I cited above). And if it does, tell them to update their feature
> list, or just replace it with a conformance statement.


Yes, Good idea. I'll post anything I find in due course.

> I'd do it myself, but I don't have the Intel compiler (yes, I know
> it's a free download, I just haven't gotten around to it).


It's not as easy to install as say lcc-win, but it's easier than
compiling gcc from source. The frustrating bit is registering and
getting a license.

Intel advertises the Linux version of their C compiler as a "drop-in
replacement" for gcc, but that's not quite true as it does not
recognise some commandline options supported by gcc like -W
(or -Wextra), -pedantic etc.

 
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
Design Recipes for FPGAs by Wilson - Opinions of book? max w. VHDL 4 09-03-2008 12:07 PM
Opinions about this new Python book? Dick Moores Python 15 08-17-2007 03:47 PM
Twisted book opinions? Jay Parlar Python 5 02-18-2006 06:31 PM
Opinions about 'Algorithms and Design Patterns in Ruby' book Gavri Fernandez Ruby 1 03-02-2005 07:33 PM
awt book+java animation book Thanasis \(sch\) Java 1 10-14-2004 03:02 PM



Advertisments