Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Where to download C99 Standard

 
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
On 2010-12-31, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> 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*


I am torn on VLAs. I quite like them, and I think I even use them in a few
places, but they have serious suitability problems for some targets.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(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
 
 
 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <kst-
(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> 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 écrit :
>>>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.

>
>So why not keep VLAs and complex arithmetic mandatory for hosted
>implementations?



What has hosted got to do with it? You can run an RTOS on 8 and 16 bit
systems and people do.

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



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris H
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <kst-
(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <kst-
>> (E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Le 30/12/10 20:21, Seebs a écrit :
>>>>> 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?

>>
>> Iven if it were true you are never going to see something like this in
>> writing. It would get discussed in coffee breaks at WG meetings as many
>> things are.

>
>Yes, coffee breaks at WG meetings that jacob did not attend.


There is as with any committee a LOT more going on than just the things
that appear in the published documents. A Lot happens in discussions
and verbal exchanges.

>jacob, what is the basis for your claim that Microsoft was behind making
>VLAs and complex arithmetic optional? Do you have inside information?


MS DID have an influence. Why not they are a major compiler company and
are probably the largest single SW on the planet (in terms of people
using their tools, OS and apps). However they do not control anything
and other compiler companies, library companies etc also have input as
to other organisations and individuals. It is a very diverse group and
no one can or does control the ISO C panel which incidentally is made
up of representatives of National Bodies.

Each National Body is in itself a committee. I was Convenor of the UK C
panel for 4 years. The NB selects a Hod (Head of Delegation) and a
Principle Expert ( In the UK it was the Principal Expert for the UK or
PEUK.... try pronouncing it

So it is very difficult for any single company to drive the ISO WG.

The closest we came to this was IBM who put people on to (I think) half
a dozen National Bodies in order to explain their Decimal Maths
proposals. In the UK we had several world class experts who interrogated
the IBM rep also a highly respected expert to ensure the proposals were
solid. Then we took a position on it as did every other country then
the National Bodies went to the ISO WG and voted.

SO M$ can not just push things through.



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



 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
Le 31/12/10 23:00, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> Yes, coffee breaks at WG meetings that jacob did not attend.
>
> jacob, what is the basis for your claim that Microsoft was behind making
> VLAs and complex arithmetic optional? Do you have inside information?
>


Plauger would never do anything that his principal client would not
approve. This is just plain to anyone.

I have nothing against microsoft as a company since I developed for
years for their products, but they contributed to the problems
of the c99 standard by boycotting it. They have dropped almost
completely any official C support, and stayed at c89 in their
compilers, ignoring even "long long" and stickying to their
__int64 nomenclature for years.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On 2010-12-31, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> 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*

>
> I am torn on VLAs. I quite like them, and I think I even use them in a few
> places, but they have serious suitability problems for some targets.


The real pain with them becoming optional is that they aren't something
that it's easy to conditionally do - unlike a missing function.
Particuarly as the natural fallback on many (most?) implementations is
the non-standard alloca.

So you end up with:
first preference: char workspace[strlen(input)]
second preference: char *workspace = alloca(strlen(input);
third preference: char *workspace = malloc(strlen(input));
...
free(workspace);
and that's before you deal with error checking and alloca having
function lifetype which VLAs (and, if you want, the malloc/free pair)
are block based.

You're going to have so many #if/else/endif around there that the code
is going to be unreadable. Or you use malloc all the time which is
inefficient to say the least in a frequently called function.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
On 2011-01-01, Chris H <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>So why not keep VLAs and complex arithmetic mandatory for hosted
>>implementations?


> What has hosted got to do with it? You can run an RTOS on 8 and 16 bit
> systems and people do.


So? The conventional boundary has been that features which some people
think are "too expensive" but which are sufficiently valuable to include
in general end up being required in a hosted environment but optional
in a freestanding environment. Note that running an RTOS doesn't necessarily
imply that you're in a hosted environment. Heck, at one point Microsoft
Windows was officially a freestanding environment, as I recall.

-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
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Le 31/12/10 23:00, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> Yes, coffee breaks at WG meetings that jacob did not attend.
>>
>> jacob, what is the basis for your claim that Microsoft was behind making
>> VLAs and complex arithmetic optional? Do you have inside information?

>
> Plauger would never do anything that his principal client would not
> approve. This is just plain to anyone.


No, it is not.

Do you know Plauger personally? Did you attend the meetings at
which these changes were discussed?

I am asking *you*, jacob, what basis you have for the claims
you're making. If you're merely speculating on the basis of who
P.J. Plauger's clients happen to be, I'm frankly not interested.
If you have actual information rather than speculation, I invite
you to share it with us.

> I have nothing against microsoft as a company since I developed for
> years for their products, but they contributed to the problems
> of the c99 standard by boycotting it. They have dropped almost
> completely any official C support, and stayed at c89 in their
> compilers, ignoring even "long long" and stickying to their
> __int64 nomenclature for years.


Then why would they care what happens to C201X? If C201X removes or
makes optional enough of the C99 features they don't like, do they
intend to support C201X? More important, *have they said so*, or
are you just speculating?

--
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
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2011
On 2011-01-01, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Plauger would never do anything that his principal client would not
>> approve. This is just plain to anyone.


> No, it is not.


> Do you know Plauger personally? Did you attend the meetings at
> which these changes were discussed?


FWIW, I've met Plauger, and read a fair bit of his writing, and I don't
believe that for a minute.

Jacob... What is the deal here? You are constantly inferring attacks
where none are visible to other people, you seem to think everyone is
dishonest... Have you considered seeing a qualified professional about
this apparently very severe depression? It's screwing up your life and
social interactions. Get it dealt with. You are much smarter than this.

-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
 
      01-02-2011
Le 01/01/11 23:44, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Le 31/12/10 23:00, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>> Yes, coffee breaks at WG meetings that jacob did not attend.
>>>
>>> jacob, what is the basis for your claim that Microsoft was behind making
>>> VLAs and complex arithmetic optional? Do you have inside information?

>>
>> Plauger would never do anything that his principal client would not
>> approve. This is just plain to anyone.

>
> No, it is not.
>
> Do you know Plauger personally? Did you attend the meetings at
> which these changes were discussed?
>


Just don't care neither about plauger nor about you.

> I am asking *you*, jacob, what basis you have for the claims
> you're making. If you're merely speculating on the basis of who
> P.J. Plauger's clients happen to be, I'm frankly not interested.
> If you have actual information rather than speculation, I invite
> you to share it with us.
>


It is a fact that Plauger presented the key propositions of
taking out essential parts of C99. In fact, as has been
discussed elsewhere in this thread, this eliminates the C99
standard since nobody will develop to implement a standard
that is being dropped by its own standards committee.

C is, as a matter of fact, rewound to the level of C89 until
xxxx years from now when the new standard is eventually
approved. Then, implementors will think twice if it is worth
to implement a standard that can be at any time dropped
by its own standards body.

All this are the CONSEQUENCES of Plauger proposal. And this are
facts, Mr Thompson that you will never acknowledge of course.

I have worked for almost a decade in implementing C99 and
the fact that after all this discussions I see mr Hills

"I TOLD YOU I TOLD YOU"

and all those people in this group (you and heathfield as principal
proponents) that fought AGAINST C99 be given reason by the
standards committee is just too much.

In this group there are the ones that pontificate (like you, without
ever propsoing anything formal into the standards body,
or just "warn against portability problems of C99) etc,
and the stupids like me that work for years constructing stuff,
developing programs, distributing them at personal expense
for free (to be treated of "shrewd software vendors") and at the end
see their work destroyed and realize, yes, I have worked for nothing.

You have won, together with that individual "seebs" that counsels
me to have some medication or treatment because I accuse
people of... what actually?

Will you (and seebs) deny that Plauger proposed to make many parts of
C99 optional?

Why do I have to give any PROOF?

Proof of WHAT?

It is a known fact that Plauger proposed that and that the committee
approved it.

I have been describing the consequences.

And I am fed up with this. Neither you nor seebs are worth more wasting
of time.

 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2011
Le 01/01/11 23:49, Seebs a écrit :
> On 2011-01-01, Keith Thompson<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Plauger would never do anything that his principal client would not
>>> approve. This is just plain to anyone.

>
>> No, it is not.

>
>> Do you know Plauger personally? Did you attend the meetings at
>> which these changes were discussed?

>
> FWIW, I've met Plauger, and read a fair bit of his writing, and I don't
> believe that for a minute.
>
> Jacob... What is the deal here? You are constantly inferring attacks
> where none are visible to other people, you seem to think everyone is
> dishonest... Have you considered seeing a qualified professional about
> this apparently very severe depression? It's screwing up your life and
> social interactions. Get it dealt with. You are much smarter than this.
>
> -s


Yes, you are right

I went to a professional and I explained my situation.

He told me:

"Look jacob, just do not speak with assholes"

I am sorry, I forgot his advice







 
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