Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Where to download C99 Standard

Reply
Thread Tools

Where to download C99 Standard

 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Francois Grieu
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

>
>Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
>
>I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
>as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
>— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
> previously mandatory)"
>
> Francois Grieu



For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.

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



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Francois Grieu
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
>>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
>>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

>>
>>Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
>><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
>>
>>I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
>>as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
>>— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
>> previously mandatory)"

>
> For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
> dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
> from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.


I see some features being made optional. I don't see anything
being dropped.

Speaking only for myself, I was skeptical of your claims because I
saw no independent evidence of them. Given the relative (but not
complete) openness of the process, I would have expected to see
some indication of such a radical change. (And again, if I recall
correctly, what you were claiming would have been much more radical
than what we're actually seeing in n1547.)

Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

--
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
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>
> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
> two C99 features that are being made optional?


Because Microsoft vetoed them. They aren't in C++ and any
independent development of a dead language like C is
a bad idea according to Microsoft.

> Does this really
> significantly reduce the burden on implementers?


Not at all.

> Are there any
> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?
>


VLAs can be easily implemented using alloca...

C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.

This individual (Plauger) was the most ardent defender of leaving
asctime() with its buffer overflow, and has been a negative force
in the development of anything useful in standard C for years.

Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
mainly for its big client, Microsoft, and it is the main force behind
an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.

At least that is the iumpression that I have after discussing the
asctime() issue in comp.lang.c with him.

In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
(or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
of C99, a proposal that was accepted.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
> two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
> significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?


I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
Le 30/12/10 20:21, Seebs a crit :
> On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
>> two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
>> significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
>> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
>> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
>> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

>
> I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
> that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
> to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?
>
> -s


One: Microsoft corp. That is why they are optional now.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
>> two C99 features that are being made optional?

>
> Because Microsoft vetoed them. They aren't in C++ and any
> independent development of a dead language like C is
> a bad idea according to Microsoft.


Please provide concrete evidence that Microsoft vetoed these
features. (Note that they're still in the language; they're merely
optional.)

>> Does this really
>> significantly reduce the burden on implementers?

>
> Not at all.
>
>> Are there any
>> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
>> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
>> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?
>>

>
> VLAs can be easily implemented using alloca...


Not really. Space allocated by alloca() is deallocated on return
from the calling function. VLAs have automatic storage duration,
and are deallocated on exit from the nearest enclosing block.
(I hope lcc-win doesn't use alloca() to implement VLAs.)

> C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.


P.J. Plauger is not, and never has been, an employee of Microsoft.
If you're saying that Plauger objected for reasons having to do
with Microsoft, that may be true (can someone else comment?),
but your statement implies more than that.

> This individual (Plauger) was the most ardent defender of leaving
> asctime() with its buffer overflow, and has been a negative force
> in the development of anything useful in standard C for years.
>
> Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
> mainly for its big client, Microsoft, and it is the main force behind
> an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.
>
> At least that is the iumpression that I have after discussing the
> asctime() issue in comp.lang.c with him.


Citation, please?

> In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
> (or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
> C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
> of C99, a proposal that was accepted.


As of the latest draft, two C99 features (is that "several"?) are being
made optional, not "dismantled".

Can someone please answer my original question (about the rationale
for making VLAs and complex types optional in C201X) *without*
engaging in personal attacks?

--
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
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2010
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Le 30/12/10 20:21, Seebs a crit :
>> On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
>>> two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
>>> significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
>>> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
>>> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
>>> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

>>
>> I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
>> that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
>> to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?

>
> One: Microsoft corp. That is why they are optional now.


Can you provide independent evidence for this claim?

--
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
 
      12-31-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <kst-
(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Francois Grieu
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
>>>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
>>>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.
>>>
>>>Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
>>><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
>>>
>>>I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
>>>as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
>>>— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
>>> previously mandatory)"

>>
>> For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
>> dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
>> from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.

>
>I see some features being made optional. I don't see anything
>being dropped.


Semantics. If features no one is implementing are being made optional
they are effectively dropped.

>Speaking only for myself, I was skeptical of your claims because I
>saw no independent evidence of them. Given the relative (but not
>complete) openness of the process, I would have expected to see
>some indication of such a radical change. (And again, if I recall
>correctly, what you were claiming would have been much more radical
>than what we're actually seeing in n1547.)


Not everything is written down in the documents.

>Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
>two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
>significantly reduce the burden on implementers?


Probably not because most implementers did not bother with them

> Are there any
>existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
>the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
>both VLAs and complex arithmetic?


Not sure, C99 implementation is very patchy

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



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
In message <ifilmu$ipr$(E-Mail Removed)>, jacob navia
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a crit :
>Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
>mainly for its big client, Microsoft,


There are other big clients... not all the world is a PC.

> and it is the main force behind
>an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.


The embedded community is generally conservative.

>In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
>(or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
>C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
>of C99, a proposal that was accepted.



SO I was not the only one saying bits of C99 should be dropped....

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



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <kst-
(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a crit :

>lock.
>(I hope lcc-win doesn't use alloca() to implement VLAs.)
>
>> C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.

>
>P.J. Plauger is not, and never has been, an employee of Microsoft.
>If you're saying that Plauger objected for reasons having to do
>with Microsoft, that may be true (can someone else comment?),
>but your statement implies more than that.


As you say PJP is NOT an employee of MS. Whilst MS are a big customer of
his so are most of the other high end compiler companies. Most of the
others are in the embedded space and they are still on C90 (actually
C95) and they want a compact C language that runs on MCU from 8-128
bits. It is the 8 (and some 16) bit systems where they need to keep the
language compact.

BTW there are stil more 8 bit MCU used than the 16 and 31 bit MCU put
together.

>> In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
>> (or similar if my memory serves).


ISO-C++ Working Group. WG21

>> It is a pity that he stayed in the
>> C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
>> of C99, a proposal that was accepted.

>
>As of the latest draft, two C99 features (is that "several"?) are being
>made optional, not "dismantled".


Because the majority of the industry does not want/need them. There are
a lot of problems in C99. They are trying fix them for C1*

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



 
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
Difference between "library parts" of C99 and "language parts" of C99 albert.neu@gmail.com C Programming 3 03-31-2007 08:14 PM
C99 standard anybody has? Rahul C Programming 14 03-20-2007 09:17 PM
C99 struct initialization (C99/gcc) jilerner@yahoo.com C Programming 3 02-20-2006 04:41 AM
How to check whether my GCC compiler support C99 standard or not? Peng Yu C++ 2 09-29-2004 04:09 PM
C99 Standard, arrays of size omitted Peteris Krumins C Programming 1 06-28-2003 01:23 AM



Advertisments