Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Latest standard after C99?

Reply
Thread Tools

Latest standard after C99?

 
 
Srinu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2010
Hi,

Is there any latest standard available after C99?

Srinivas
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Vivien MOREAU
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2010
On 2010-05-01, Srinu wrote:

> Is there any latest standard available after C99?


No.

--
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
--Dennis M. Ritchie
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ben Bacarisse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2010
Vivien MOREAU <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 2010-05-01, Srinu wrote:
>
>> Is there any latest standard available after C99?

>
> No.


That's at least debatable! C99 was modified by three technical
corrigenda so one could argue that the current standard is
C99+TC1+TC2+TC3. You can read it at:

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG...docs/n1256.pdf

The changes are relatively small and it's certainly not wrong to say C99
is latest standard.

--
Ben.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2010
I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.

Lorenzo Villari <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On Sat, 1 May 2010 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Srinu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Is there any latest standard available after C99?
>>
>> Srinivas

>
> There's the C1X Charter
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1250.pdf


Of course that's not a standard, but it's still quite interesting.

It's been suggested that the Committee intends to back out some C99
features and base the new C201X standard on C90. I see no hint of that
in N1250. There is the following statement:

With the C1X revision the Committee agreed that it might discuss
the sub-sectioning of the Standard. As the Standard grows in
size and complexity the Committee should not force the vendors
that supply the small machine market to implement features
that bloat the compiler and are not used in the environment
for which the implementation is targeted.

but that doesn't suggest completely dropping any C99 features.
Note that P.J. Plauger's proposal to make certain features (complex
arithmetic, threads, VLAs, and possibly atomics) optional is
consistent with the statement in the charter.

Another statement from the charter:

Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
commercial implementation should be considered.

is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
gcc?

The latest draft of the proposed C201x standard is
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1425.pdf>.
Note that this is *not* a standard; don't expect any implementations
to support any of the new features yet.

--
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
 
lawrence.jones@siemens.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2010
In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Another statement from the charter:
>
> Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
> commercial implementation should be considered.
>
> is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
> gcc?


Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
academic and experimental implementations.
--
Larry Jones

What's the matter? Don't you trust your own kid?! -- Calvin
 
Reply With Quote
 
BGB / cr88192
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2010

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Another statement from the charter:
>>
>> Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
>> commercial implementation should be considered.
>>
>> is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
>> gcc?

>
> Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
> Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
> commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
> academic and experimental implementations.


yep.

I guess it would be like me trying to promote that people add variant typing
to C.
my implementation does this, technically, but I end up not using it so much
for its originally-intended purpose (providing dynamic type support in C),
rather, its use has typically become more limited, namely flagging off what
is a dynamically-tyoed reference.

other misc features:
128-bit wide pointers;
built-in support for quaternions and vector geometry;
....

these are all fairly well experimental feaures though, and few are as
heavily used as originally intended.

or such...


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Bos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2010
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > Another statement from the charter:
> >
> > Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
> > commercial implementation should be considered.
> >
> > is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
> > gcc?

>
> Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
> Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
> commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
> academic and experimental implementations.


Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.

Richard
 
Reply With Quote
 
spinoza1111
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2010
On May 2, 1:26*am, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.
>
> Lorenzo Villari <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > On Sat, 1 May 2010 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > Srinu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Is there any latest standard available after C99?

>
> >> Srinivas

>
> > There's the C1X Charter

"

Good answer to our friends in Asia! No patronizing BS. Keep up the
good work. My lecturing seems to be working dat old black magic even
on Kiki.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> > Another statement from the charter:
>> >
>> > Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
>> > commercial implementation should be considered.
>> >
>> > is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
>> > gcc?

>>
>> Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
>> Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
>> commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
>> academic and experimental implementations.

>
>Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.
>
>Richard


Yes. Why not just use, say, "widely used"?

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

 
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
C11 (latest c standard) supports threading, any mention about scheduling Varun Tewari C Programming 3 04-01-2013 06:31 PM
Wording inconsistency in the latest C++0x standard draft ZMZ C++ 1 03-03-2011 09:37 AM
Latest standard after C++03? Srinu C++ 4 05-03-2010 03:35 PM
latest C++ standard Matt C++ 2 08-08-2004 01:12 PM
latest C standard version Matt C Programming 2 07-21-2004 02:19 PM



Advertisments