Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Storgae durations

Reply
Thread Tools

Storgae durations

 
 
Antoninus Twink
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:29, jacob navia wrote:
> The fact that Heathfield doesn't know what he is speaking about
> doesn't mean that there isn't any C99 compiler for that platform.


If Heathfield really didn't know, then that wouldn't be so bad.

As it is, he knows perfectly well what the situation is, but
deliberately chooses to tell lies. He is not ignorant, but deceitful and
untrustworthy.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Antoninus Twink
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:35, jacob navia wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
>> notquiteISO C.

>
> Yes, sure.
>
> So, here, you say, "we" discuss whatever "you" like.
>
> GREAT Heathfield.


This is the same Heathfield who said earlier in this thread that he
lives in the real world.

This is not a private web forum. It is not a moderated newsgroup. There
is nothing Heathfield can do to stop "us" discussing whatever "we" like.

Or to adopt Heathfield's pompous way of putting things: "de jure" this
group may ISO C, but "de facto" it discusses all C and plenty of other
things besides.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:54*pm, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) said:
>> > Richard Heathfield wrote:


<snip>

>> >> Do *you* use a conforming C99 implementation? You probably don't -
>> >> but maybe, just maybe, you do. Most people, however, don't.

>>
>> > Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
>> > implementation.

>>
>> So no, then. If C99 isn't even portable to *your* desktop, it is hard
>> to see how you can sustain a claim to general portability.

>
> I use C99 for my desktop. Where do you get that "C99 isn't even
> portable to my desktop"?


Presumably from your statement above that you use GCC's non-conforming
C99 implementation.

Richard does have a point, IMO. Even some WG14 Committee members have
mentioned in this group (or in comp.std.c) that C99 has been
implemented completely by a dramatically smaller number of vendors than
the Committee had anticipated prior to the Standard's release. This
observation has resulted in the Manifesto for C1x to explicitly
discourge so-called Committee inventions unless there exist a
reasonable number of existing implementations.

Most C compilers seem to have implement *parts* of C99 but only a few
have implemented it in it's entirety. This means that you have to be
far more circumspect when trying to write a maximally portable C99
program than a C90 one, so much so, that you might find yourself coding
in the subset of C99 that corresponds almost exactly to C90.

Obviously not everyone needs to write "maximally" portable code. If
you're only targeting desktops, then you can use C99 with far more
assurance, though the fact that MS refuse to implement it is quite an
irritating thorn in the side.

>> > But the important thing is not so much the conformance
>> > level,

>>
>> The important thing to you, maybe - but here, we discuss ISO C, not
>> notquiteISO C.

>
> I'm not discussing "notquiteISO C." I'm stating that the important
> thing is not so much the conformance level, but the compiler's
> usability.


When you are writing for only one compiler then it's extensions and
value-added features are great, but when you are writing code meant to
compile under several compilers then the Standard starts to be quite
valuable with regards to how much common functionality you can depend
upon, and how much of your code needs to include multiple
compiler/system specific conditionally compiled code. Rewriting the
whole application for each targeted compiler is an enormous waste,
while sticking solely to what C90/C99 guarantees may also not be
feasible. The trick is in using Standard code where it will suffice and
extensions elsewhere.

Fully conformant compilers facilitate this process of producing
semi-portable code while non-conformant compilers make the job more
complicated.

<snip>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Huibert Bol
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
James Kuyper wrote:

>> This was addressed in DR138, the real question is: does this make it part
>> of the offical standard.

>
> What do you mean by that question? It most certainly already is a part of the
> official standard: 6.2.4p1: "There are three storage durations: static,
> automatic, and allocated."
>


Sorry, I meant what was the status with regard to the (then, 1994) standard?
RRs seem to live in a sort of limbo until the standard gets updated, which, in
this case, never happened.

--
Huibert
"Okay... really not something I needed to see." --Raven
 
Reply With Quote
 
s0suk3@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
On Aug 16, 3:47 pm, santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > On Aug 16, 2:54 pm, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> (E-Mail Removed) said:
> >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
> <snip>
>
> >> >> Do *you* use a conforming C99 implementation? You probably don't -
> >> >> but maybe, just maybe, you do. Most people, however, don't.

>
> >> > Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
> >> > implementation.

>
> >> So no, then. If C99 isn't even portable to *your* desktop, it is hard
> >> to see how you can sustain a claim to general portability.

>
> > I use C99 for my desktop. Where do you get that "C99 isn't even
> > portable to my desktop"?

>
> Presumably from your statement above that you use GCC's non-conforming
> C99 implementation.
>


The question remains: Where does he get that "C99 isn't even portable
to my desktop"?

> Richard does have a point, IMO. Even some WG14 Committee members have
> mentioned in this group (or in comp.std.c) that C99 has been
> implemented completely by a dramatically smaller number of vendors than
> the Committee had anticipated prior to the Standard's release. This
> observation has resulted in the Manifesto for C1x to explicitly
> discourge so-called Committee inventions unless there exist a
> reasonable number of existing implementations.
>


I've been wondering, if C99 has been implemented only by a small
number of vendors so far, the reason seeming to be that they're not
interested in C anymore, *who* is going to implement C1X?

> Most C compilers seem to have implement *parts* of C99 but only a few
> have implemented it in it's entirety. This means that you have to be
> far more circumspect when trying to write a maximally portable C99
> program than a C90 one, so much so, that you might find yourself coding
> in the subset of C99 that corresponds almost exactly to C90.
>


Not if your code needs to portable among OSs where there are C99
implementations, which I would expect to be the case of most people.
Isn't that your case too?

<snip>

Sebastian

 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
Huibert Bol wrote:

> James Kuyper wrote:
>
>>> This was addressed in DR138, the real question is: does this make it
>>> part of the offical standard.

>>
>> What do you mean by that question? It most certainly already is a
>> part of the official standard: 6.2.4p1: "There are three storage
>> durations: static, automatic, and allocated."
>>

>
> Sorry, I meant what was the status with regard to the (then, 1994)
> standard? RRs seem to live in a sort of limbo until the standard gets
> updated, which, in this case, never happened.


I believe that the RRs that are published can be taken
as "clarifications" to the current Standard, but they are not
normative.

 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On Aug 16, 3:47 pm, santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> > On Aug 16, 2:54 pm, Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> (E-Mail Removed) said:
>> >> > Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> Do *you* use a conforming C99 implementation? You probably
>> >> >> don't - but maybe, just maybe, you do. Most people, however,
>> >> >> don't.

>>
>> >> > Like I've told you before, I use GCC's non-conforming C99
>> >> > implementation.

>>
>> >> So no, then. If C99 isn't even portable to *your* desktop, it is
>> >> hard to see how you can sustain a claim to general portability.

>>
>> > I use C99 for my desktop. Where do you get that "C99 isn't even
>> > portable to my desktop"?

>>
>> Presumably from your statement above that you use GCC's
>> non-conforming C99 implementation.

>
> The question remains: Where does he get that "C99 isn't even portable
> to my desktop"?


Okay, let's leave this point.

>> Richard does have a point, IMO. Even some WG14 Committee members have
>> mentioned in this group (or in comp.std.c) that C99 has been
>> implemented completely by a dramatically smaller number of vendors
>> than the Committee had anticipated prior to the Standard's release.
>> This observation has resulted in the Manifesto for C1x to explicitly
>> discourge so-called Committee inventions unless there exist a
>> reasonable number of existing implementations.

>
> I've been wondering, if C99 has been implemented only by a small
> number of vendors so far, the reason seeming to be that they're not
> interested in C anymore, *who* is going to implement C1X?


This is a fair question, and something I think that many programmers
might well wonder about, given C99's adoption rate. To the Committee's
credit, they do seem to be aware of this and seem determined to
minimise changes and additions.

Personally, I think an important determinant of C1x's success will be
it's extent of compatibility with C++0x. Apparently WG14 and WG21
collaborate closely in areas where their activities will affect the
other. A Standard that is highly compatible with C++0x will probably be
implemented fairly enthusiastically.

>> Most C compilers seem to have implement *parts* of C99 but only a few
>> have implemented it in it's entirety. This means that you have to be
>> far more circumspect when trying to write a maximally portable C99
>> program than a C90 one, so much so, that you might find yourself
>> coding in the subset of C99 that corresponds almost exactly to C90.

>
> Not if your code needs to portable among OSs where there are C99
> implementations, which I would expect to be the case of most people.
> Isn't that your case too?
>
> <snip>


Yes, but there *are* a lot of developers working in the embedded arena
where C99 is not implemented as well as C90.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-16-2008
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> I've been wondering, if C99 has been implemented only by a small
> number of vendors so far, the reason seeming to be that they're not
> interested in C anymore, *who* is going to implement C1X?
>

Oh there's plenty of interest in C, but don't forget the majority of C
is written for embedded platforms that have no use for many C99 features
(_Complex on an 8 bit micro anyone?). I'd wager a decent quantity of
beer on the percentage of C programmers who have used <complex.h> or
<tgmath.h> in production code is vanishingly small.

--
Ian Collins.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-17-2008
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[...]
> He said that C99 wasn't available for IBM mainframes, what
> is a lie.


(referring to Richard Heathfield)
> See:
>
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/
>
> <quote>
> Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99)
> <end quote>


Assuming you're referring to what Richard wrote in this thread, I
suggest you read it again. He *didn't say* that C99 isn't available
for IBM mainframes.

And even if he had, apparently it didn't occur to you that he might
not have known about that web page.

I am sick and tired of the way you throw the words "lie" and "liar"
around.

Grow up.

--
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
 
      08-17-2008
Ian Collins wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>> I've been wondering, if C99 has been implemented only by a small
>> number of vendors so far, the reason seeming to be that they're not
>> interested in C anymore, *who* is going to implement C1X?
>>

> Oh there's plenty of interest in C, but don't forget the majority of C
> is written for embedded platforms that have no use for many C99
> features (_Complex on an 8 bit micro anyone?). I'd wager a decent
> quantity of beer on the percentage of C programmers who have used
> <complex.h> or <tgmath.h> in production code is vanishingly small.


Then I wonder why the Committee standardised them in the first place? It
seemingly flies against their own charter for C99.

On a related note, I note that the Committee is considering the
possibility of sectioning the Standard for it's next incarnation. If
it's embraced then the maths and scientific functions could be included
in a "Scientific C" subset.

 
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
Durations in Java JGralton@gmail.com Java 2 04-16-2008 11:26 AM
Exam Durations Marlin Munrow Microsoft Certification 1 05-08-2004 07:21 PM
Portable Storgae Option Matt Ziebarth Digital Photography 3 11-22-2003 12:52 PM



Advertisments