«

Cal Dershowitz wrote:

> I'm wondering how it all turned out. While the C specification is
> concise and small, the C family of users and applications is
> monstrously-large.
>
> Did embedded systems eventually embrace newer C?

In the past few years, several embedded shops have "seen the light"
(if you'll pardon my bias) and dropped their proprietary toolchain to
adopt open toolchains based on GNU or (lately) Clang+LLVM (a project
fueled mainly by Apple's fear&hatred of anything GPLv3, which doesn't
jive with their master plan for world domination).

> Is there a new standard, like a C 2012, where everyone's happy and
> there's this great moment of aquarius going on in the C community?

There is INDEED a newer standard, called C11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%2...rd_revision%29

> How do I ask my linux operating system about the C it uses?

Linux probably means gcc. Check the -std flag.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Pr...x-std_003d-970
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-...#index-std-103

On 2012-11-29, Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> Cal Dershowitz wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering how it all turned out. While the C specification is
>> concise and small, the C family of users and applications is
>> monstrously-large.
>>
>> Did embedded systems eventually embrace newer C?
>
> In the past few years, several embedded shops have "seen the light"
> (if you'll pardon my bias) and dropped their proprietary toolchain to
> adopt open toolchains based on GNU or (lately) Clang+LLVM (a project
> fueled mainly by Apple's fear&hatred of anything GPLv3, which doesn't
> jive with their master plan for world domination).

In all fairness, Clang+LLVM is far more pleasurable to work on (and with)
than gcc. A while ago, a colleague and me wanted to add a couple of hacks
to gcc's MSP430 port, but gcc is indeed as convoluted as it is famous for.

--
Weland Treebark,
Wandering Philosopher and Engineer