«

jacob navia wrote:

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

What PJP did propose was to identify the core features of C. The context of the
comments was important. This was at a time that ISO/IEC 18037 and the decimal
math standards were becoming standards. It was clear to everyone at WG14 that
these two TR's were not needed by everyone. The real question was if the TR's
were optional, what were the core features of C?

I have seen very little evidence that Microsoft has attempted any undue
influence on the C standards in any WG14 meeting I have attended. The technical
papers are online and in most cases the authors company affiliation is known.

Regards,

w..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com

In message <ifsfr2$d26$>, jacob navia
<> writes
>Le 03/01/11 12:08, Chris H a écrit :
>etc.
>>
>> Which "big" compilers implemented C99? IAR did not. ARM did not in fact
>> most of the worlds compilers did not....
>>
>
>IAR:
>In the site of that company we can read:
>http://www.iar.com/website1/1.0.1.0/50/1/
>
>Language and standards
><quote>
> * The C programming language as standardized by ISO/ANSI C94 with
>selected features from C99
><end quote>
>This is an ongoing implementation.
>Mr Hills:
>
>Either you know nothing about what you are talking about
>or
>You are just lying.

I know a Lot more about it than you do.

Everyone has done partial implementations (including GCC). No one in the
main stream has done full implementations. The problem is the C99 added
a hell of a lot of stuff no one wanted.

So far the people that according to you are "lying" the people who have
actually seen or been on the inside of the standard process.

All I can suggest is that you join your National Body for C
standardisation and take part in WG14.


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

In message <ifsfr2$d26$>, jacob navia
<> writes
>Le 03/01/11 12:08, Chris H a écrit :
>etc.
>>
>> Which "big" compilers implemented C99? IAR did not. ARM did not in fact
>> most of the worlds compilers did not....
>>
>
>IAR:
>In the site of that company we can read:
>http://www.iar.com/website1/1.0.1.0/50/1/
>
>Language and standards
><quote>
> * The C programming language as standardized by ISO/ANSI C94 with
>selected features from C99
><end quote>
>
>Mr Hills:
>
>Either you know nothing about what you are talking about
>or
>You are just lying.

I appreciate that English is not your first language but as your quote
from IAR says we have a C94 compiler "with selected features from C99"

As I said IAR have not implemented a C99 compiler. They have a C94
compiler with some bits of C99 added. This is all any of the mainstream
compilers have done.



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

Walter Banks <> writes:
> jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Will you (and seebs) deny that Plauger proposed to make many parts of
>> C99 optional?
>
> What PJP did propose was to identify the core features of C. The context of the
> comments was important. This was at a time that ISO/IEC 18037 and the decimal
> math standards were becoming standards. It was clear to everyone at WG14 that
> these two TR's were not needed by everyone. The real question was if the TR's
> were optional, what were the core features of C?
[...]

Are there any documents available online that discuss
the rationale for this? Probably something under
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/, but there are a
lot of documents there.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <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"

Chris H <> writes:
> In message <ifqpm2$cbo$>, Alan Curry
> <> writes
>>In article <>,
>>Chris H <> wrote:
>>>In message <ifnc1f$68o$>, jacob navia
>>><> writes
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>So did the rest of the industry. MS were not alone in this.... they were
>>>in line with the norm.
>>>
>>
>>google the phrase "requires a C99 compiler", or "requires a C99-compliant
>>compiler" and you'll find many packages depending on C99. And those are just
>>the ones that bothered to document it, and used those exact words.
>>
>>Your "industry" seems to be less influential than you thought.
>
> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
> compliant.

I think Intel has claimed that their compiler is fully C99 compliant.

gcc is certainly quite close. If you look at the current list on
<http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>, several of the features marked
"Missing" are not actually required; for example, an implementation
is not required to provide any extended integer types. And the
only C99 features being made optional are complex types and VLAs,
both of which gcc implements, making those features optional will
have little impact on gcc users.

I believe there is a significant community of C programmers who
only use gcc.

Are there plans to make any more C99 features optional, or will it
be just VLAs and complex types?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <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"

In message <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
> writes
>Chris H <> writes:
>> In message <ifqpm2$cbo$>, Alan Curry
>> <> writes
>>>In article <>,
>>>Chris H <> wrote:
>>>>In message <ifnc1f$68o$>, jacob navia
>>>><> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>So did the rest of the industry. MS were not alone in this.... they were
>>>>in line with the norm.
>>>>
>>>
>>>google the phrase "requires a C99 compiler", or "requires a C99-compliant
>>>compiler" and you'll find many packages depending on C99. And those are just
>>>the ones that bothered to document it, and used those exact words.
>>>
>>>Your "industry" seems to be less influential than you thought.
>>
>> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
>> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
>> compliant.
>
>I think Intel has claimed that their compiler is fully C99 compliant.

Who which target?

>gcc is certainly quite close.

No more so than anyone else. There is a lot more than x86 in the world
(IAR fro example has 35 other targets). I don't think there are any C99
complaint compilers for any other target.



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

On Jan 3, 11:11*am, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <lnfwtaeyhz....@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
> u...@mib.org> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> writes:
> >> In message <ifqpm2$cb...@speranza.aioe.org>, Alan Curry
> >> <pac...@kosh.dhis.org> writes
> >>>In article <jJMeUyAGuLINF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
> >>>Chris H *<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> >>>>In message <ifnc1f$68...@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia
> >>>><ja...@spamsink.net> writes
>
> >>>>>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.
>
> >>>>So did the rest of the industry. MS were not alone in this.... they were
> >>>>in line with the norm.
>
> >>>google the phrase "requires a C99 compiler", or "requires a C99-compliant
> >>>compiler" and you'll find many packages depending on C99. And those are just
> >>>the ones that bothered to document it, and used those exact words.
>
> >>>Your "industry" seems to be less influential than you thought.
>
> >> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
> >> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
> >> compliant.
>
> >I think Intel has claimed that their compiler is fully C99 compliant.
>
> Who which target?
>
> >gcc is certainly quite close.
>
> No more so than anyone else. There is a lot more than x86 in the world
> (IAR fro example has 35 other targets). *I don't think there are any C99
> complaint compilers for any other target.


IBM's XL C/C++ claims C99 conformance for its POWER and zArch
versions. And Intel's ICC is available for IPF too (although I'm
unclear as to ICCs exact level of C99 conformance).

But it's pretty thin. Even the IBM compilers show a glaring hole:
IBM is pushing Linux on Z fairly heavily. And while they have a
version of their POWER compiler for both AIX and Linux, the Z compiler
is only available on ZOS and zVM, and *not* zLinux. Although in
practical terms, I suspect that XL C/C++ for Linux is a niche product
like ICC for Linux is.

Chris H <> writes:
> In message <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
> > writes
>>Chris H <> writes:
>>> In message <ifqpm2$cbo$>, Alan Curry
>>> <> writes
>>>>In article <>,
>>>>Chris H <> wrote:
>>>>>In message <ifnc1f$68o$>, jacob navia
>>>>><> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>So did the rest of the industry. MS were not alone in this.... they were
>>>>>in line with the norm.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>google the phrase "requires a C99 compiler", or "requires a
>>>>C99-compliant compiler" and you'll find many packages depending
>>>>on C99. And those are just the ones that bothered to document
>>>>it, and used those exact words.
>>>>
>>>>Your "industry" seems to be less influential than you thought.
>>>
>>> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
>>> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
>>> compliant.
>>
>>I think Intel has claimed that their compiler is fully C99 compliant.
>
> Who which target?

A moment with Google indicates that it supports x86, x86-64 (or
whatever they're calling it these days), and Itanium 2, on compatible
processors, on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. (If you're going to
say that this is only a narrow selection of targets, please note
that I haven't claimed otherwise.)

>>gcc is certainly quite close.
>
> No more so than anyone else.

I'm not convinced that that's correct. Take a look at
<http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>. (I'm not sure what else to
compare it to.)

> There is a lot more than x86 in the world
> (IAR fro example has 35 other targets). I don't think there are any C99
> complaint compilers for any other target.

Are you under the impression that gcc is specific to x86?

And again, a question you snipped from my previous article:

Are there plans to make any more C99 features optional, or will it
be just VLAs and complex types?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <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"

On 2011-01-03, Chris H <> wrote:
> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
> compliant.

Well, that turns out not to matter. pseudo "requires C99", only of course
it doesn't, it just requires a few specific features (the C99 version of
the struct hack, designated initializers, and one or two others as I recall).

But since those features are in every implementation I care about, whatever.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
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.

In message <slrnii48r8.gdn.usenet->, Seebs
<usenet-> writes
>On 2011-01-03, Chris H <> wrote:
>> So which compilers are C99 compliant? Many do some bits of C99 but there
>> are very few, and AFAIK no mainstream compilers, that are fully C99
>> compliant.
>
>Well, that turns out not to matter. pseudo "requires C99", only of course
>it doesn't, it just requires a few specific features (the C99 version of
>the struct hack, designated initializers, and one or two others as I recall).
>
>But since those features are in every implementation I care about, whatever.

That is my point. No one fully implemented C99. Most implemented "some"
features"

So what I think ISO is looking at doing is making optional the things
that "most" compilers don't use. So we can get back to a core language
that everyone uses.

The 2004 C-Bed proposal was to have a small (C95 like) core and make
additional things optional in various appendices. So all compilers
could then validate to C-XX "with Appendix 1,3,6" etc as required.

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