c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

[xuanbai98]

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

[Jonathan Burd]

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard. Secondly, your question is about whether a particular
implementation supports standard C'99. You should visit the
manufacturer's Website for more information on this. AFAIK, it doesn't.

Regards,
Jonathan.

--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
C Library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html
C99 Standard Draft: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/

"I'm learning to program because then I can write
programs to do my homework faster." - Andy Anfilofieff

[BRG]

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

The current version of the Microsoft compiler (v7.1) does not support
many C99 features. As far as I can tell this won't change in v8 (it has
not changed in the v8 beta).

On the other hand the Intel v8 compiler, which can be fully integrated
into Visual Studio, does support many C99 features using the /Qc99 option:

Restricted pointers
Variable-length Arrays
Flexible array members
Complex number support (_Complex keyword)
Hexadecimal floating-point constants
Compound literals
Designated initializers
Mixed declarations and code
Macros with a variable number of arguments
Inline functions (use inline keyword)
Boolean type (_Bool keyword)

These C99 features are NOT supported:

#pragma STDC FP_CONTRACT
#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS
#pragma STDC CX_LIMITED_RANGE

Brian Gladman

[Eltee]

Jonathan Burd wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard.

Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?

[Lawrence Kirby]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:54:03 +0530, Jonathan Burd wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard.

There is no way to verify that a compiler is *completely* compliant with a
standard like C's. It is likely that any piece of software as complex as
a C compiler will contain bugs. What you have in practice is a matter of
support - does the vendor support the full standard?

Lawrence

[James McIninch]

Microsoft had pledged 75% compatiblity with the C standard by 2007. That was
last year. I don't know what their current plans are.

<posted & mailed>

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

--
Remove '.nospam' from e-mail address to reply by e-mail

[Keith Thompson]

James McIninch <ja*******************@comcast.net> writes:

Microsoft had pledged 75% compatiblity with the C standard by 2007. That was
last year. I don't know what their current plans are.

So CHAR_BIT will be at least 6?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Eltee]

Eltee wrote:

Jonathan Burd wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Thanks,

Xuan

I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard.

Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?

May I conclude from the "silence" that there is, in fact, no compiler completely
compliant with the C'99 standard?

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Eltee wrote:

Jonathan Burd wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?
I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard.

Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?

May I conclude from the "silence" that there is, in fact, no compiler
completely compliant with the C'99 standard?

I don't believe we can stop you.

Whether that's a smart conclusion is another question entirely.
Should you read some of the many past threads in comp.lang.c on this
question (if the question is "compilers in general", and not
"compilers for MS Visual Studio" - a qualification you yourself
raised, but did not clarify in your most recent post), you'd see that
people have identified some implementations that claim to conform to
C99.

Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.

Perhaps it would be better to ask what motivates the question. If I
were to tell you that the utterly obscure Foo compiler for the Bar
system complies with every word of the C99 standard, what good would
that do you? Or, conversely, if I were to say that I have found at
least one instance of non-compliance in every single existing
implementation?

For me, what's useful to know is that five years after the standard
was published, very few implementations comply with it completely;
even more importantly *for me*, implementations I have to use do not
provide the new features of C99, and therefore the C99 standard is
largely irrelevant to the C I write and maintain. I'll be stuck with
C90 for the foreseeable future.

(Actually, it's even worse than that, for some older products I
sometimes do maintenance work on; we have customer support agreements
for those which require that we continue to support *pre-standard*
implementations, so for example the code still has abominable
conditional compilation to suppress generating prototypes when
building for those archaic implementations. Simply ghastly.)

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Americans have five disadvantages which you should take into account
before giving us too hard a time:
- We're landlocked
- We're monolingual
- We have poor math and geography skills -- Lucas MacBride

[Jonathan Burd]

Keith Thompson wrote:

James McIninch <ja*******************@comcast.net> writes:
<Snip>

So CHAR_BIT will be at least 6?

LOL!

--
"I'm learning to program because then I can write
programs to do my homework faster." - Andy Anfilofieff

[Eltee]

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Eltee wrote:

Jonathan Burd wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:
>I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
>Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
>Visual Studio?
>

I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
C'99 standard.

Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?
May I conclude from the "silence" that there is, in fact, no compiler
completely compliant with the C'99 standard?

I don't believe we can stop you.

Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers. I'm not
demanding any hard proof. A word from an author/implementor/producer would be fine.
Whether that's a smart conclusion is another question entirely.
?!?
Should you read some of the many past threads in comp.lang.c on this
question (if the question is "compilers in general", and not
"compilers for MS Visual Studio" - a qualification you yourself
raised, but did not clarify in your most recent post), you'd see that
people have identified some implementations that claim to conform to
C99.

Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.
Like I said: I don't need a proof. For now at least. For now I'd be happy with a
reference implementation that merely claims full compliance.
Perhaps it would be better to ask what motivates the question.
How about this: software reliability. I write something in C99 relying on some
C99\C90 feature and then I naively think that the running program executes
accordingly.

Could also be something else: if there are no C99 compilers out there ;-) then
the whole C99 "business", including the combined clc expertise so far, is just
academic.

It would be nice to know that all the C99 theorizing has some hard foundation in
practice also.
If I
were to tell you that the utterly obscure Foo compiler for the Bar
system complies with every word of the C99 standard, what good would
that do you?
I'd at least have hope that someday a C99 compiler could exist even for generaly
used, wide spread, systems.
Or, conversely, if I were to say that I have found at
least one instance of non-compliance in every single existing
implementation?
At least we'd know where we stand.
For me, what's useful to know is that five years after the standard
was published, very few implementations comply with it completely;
even more importantly *for me*, implementations I have to use do not
provide the new features of C99, and therefore the C99 standard is
largely irrelevant to the C I write and maintain. I'll be stuck with
C90 for the foreseeable future.

(Actually, it's even worse than that, for some older products I
sometimes do maintenance work on; we have customer support agreements
for those which require that we continue to support *pre-standard*
implementations, so for example the code still has abominable
conditional compilation to suppress generating prototypes when
building for those archaic implementations. Simply ghastly.)

Yup. Ghastly.

[Lawrence Kirby]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:
....
Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.
Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?
I'm not
demanding any hard proof. A word from an author/implementor/producer would be fine.

Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".

Whether that's a smart conclusion is another question entirely.

?!?

Should you read some of the many past threads in comp.lang.c on this
question (if the question is "compilers in general", and not "compilers
for MS Visual Studio" - a qualification you yourself raised, but did
not clarify in your most recent post), you'd see that people have
identified some implementations that claim to conform to C99.

Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.

Like I said: I don't need a proof. For now at least. For now I'd be
happy with a reference implementation that merely claims full
compliance.

Perhaps it would be better to ask what motivates the question.

How about this: software reliability. I write something in C99 relying
on some C99\C90 feature and then I naively think that the running
program executes accordingly.

Could also be something else: if there are no C99 compilers out there
;-) then the whole C99 "business", including the combined clc expertise
so far, is just academic.

You don't need 100% "compliance" for C99 to be useful. Compilers like gcc
with an appropriate library claim compliance except for some documented
features and situations. It isn't a perfect situation from a code
portability perspective, but it is certainly possible to use new C99
features in current developments.

Lawrence

[Randy Howard]

In article <pa****************************@netactive.co.uk> ,
lk****@netactive.co.uk says...

You don't need 100% "compliance" for C99 to be useful.
You need something closer to it than what is currently available
if you need to write portable code that takes advantage of C99
features. If someone could publish a subset of C99 that is
commonly implemented on say 5 different C compilers that would
be useful. I haven't seen anything like a general trend to
implement any common subset, but I haven't searched for such
a trend either.

With C89/90, the "compliance" is such that it is rare that you
can't get portable code to work on all of them.
Compilers like gcc with an appropriate library claim compliance
except for some documented features and situations.
That's fairly vague and weasel-word infected, surely?
It isn't a perfect situation from a code portability perspective,
but it is certainly possible to use new C99 features in current
developments.

Which can be safely used if cross-platform portability (including
those for which gcc is unavailable) is important?

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

[Eltee]

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

...

Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.

Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?

I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even claims C99
compliance for their implementations.

I'm not
demanding any hard proof. A word from an author/implementor/producer would be fine.

Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".

Pretty impressive, yes. Founding fa..., that is, members, heh? So now we have
"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate. Anybody else?

Whether that's a smart conclusion is another question entirely.

?!?

Should you read some of the many past threads in comp.lang.c on this
question (if the question is "compilers in general", and not "compilers
for MS Visual Studio" - a qualification you yourself raised, but did
not clarify in your most recent post), you'd see that people have
identified some implementations that claim to conform to C99.

Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.

Like I said: I don't need a proof. For now at least. For now I'd be
happy with a reference implementation that merely claims full
compliance.

Perhaps it would be better to ask what motivates the question.

How about this: software reliability. I write something in C99 relying
on some C99\C90 feature and then I naively think that the running
program executes accordingly.

Could also be something else: if there are no C99 compilers out there
;-) then the whole C99 "business", including the combined clc expertise
so far, is just academic.

You don't need 100% "compliance" for C99 to be useful.

Certainly. It would be nice to know, however, that there's some fully compliant
compiler out there. Might even be slow, producing slow executables, whatever.
Just for comparison.

In mathematics one can define almost anything. Whether one can prove the defined
thing's existence or not, well, that's another matter. Generaly, things without
proven existence aren't very useful in developing further theories, nor regarded
very highly. Analogously, if we take ISO C99 standard as a definition, it'd be
nice to have a reference implementation, thus giving the definition (standard)
some level of consistency. In fact, I'd go even one step further: I'd deny a
specification a title of a standard without a reference implementation. But hey,
that's just me. ;-)
Compilers like gcc
with an appropriate library claim compliance except for some documented
features and situations. It isn't a perfect situation from a code
portability perspective, but it is certainly possible to use new C99
features in current developments.

Lawrence

[pjp]

Eltee wrote:

Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?
I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even

claims C99 compliance for their implementations.

Uh, the EDG front end plus the Dinkum C Library has been C99 compliant
for several years now. And Perennial, Inc. -- an independent purveyor
of C validation suites -- certified our compliance over two years ago.
(See http://www.peren.com/index.htm.) We have quite a number of joint
customers who are in a position to claim C99 conformance when it suits
them, but each of these has its own release schedule and its own
priorities for what it emphasizes. Meanwhile, you can easily license
the Comeau packaging of the EDG front end, plus our library, and
have a conforming C99 implementation in the comfort of your own home.
(FWIW, this combo is also the only fully compliant C++ compiler I
know of.)

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

[Eltee]

pj*@plauger.com wrote:

Eltee wrote:

Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?
I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even

claims

C99 compliance for their implementations.

Uh, the EDG front end plus the Dinkum C Library has been C99 compliant
for several years now. And Perennial, Inc. -- an independent purveyor
of C validation suites -- certified our compliance over two years ago.
(See http://www.peren.com/index.htm.) We have quite a number of joint
customers who are in a position to claim C99 conformance when it suits
them, but each of these has its own release schedule and its own
priorities for what it emphasizes. Meanwhile, you can easily license
the Comeau packaging of the EDG front end, plus our library, and
have a conforming C99 implementation in the comfort of your own home.
(FWIW, this combo is also the only fully compliant C++ compiler I
know of.)

I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

pj*@plauger.com wrote:

Eltee wrote:

I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even claims
C99 compliance for their implementations.

Uh, the EDG front end plus the Dinkum C Library has been C99 compliant
for several years now. ...

I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)

You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
claims from assorted implementors in other threads. Had you simply
searched for them you would have found them.

For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
compiler conforms to C99.

Of course, if you fail to look for conformance claims, and you ignore
suggestions to do so, then it's not odd that it will appear to you that
no one makes them.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

The way things were, were the way things were, and they stayed that way
because they had always been that way. -- Jon Osborne

[Greg Comeau]

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
<xu*******@gmail.com> wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio.
Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.
Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <v5********************@comcast.com>,
James McIninch <ja*******************@comcast.net> wrote:

xu*******@gmail.com wrote:

I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
Visual Studio?

Microsoft had pledged 75% compatiblity with the C standard by 2007.
That was last year. I don't know what their current plans are.

I am unclear what the means. C90 itself is probably 75%
compatible with C99 (that is, C99 is derived from C90,
and so some 75% of C99 already looks exactly the same as C90)??
Do you have the URL where that pledge is made?
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <cs********@news1.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mw*****@newsguy.com> wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Eltee wrote:

> Jonathan Burd wrote:
>> xu*******@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
>>> Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
>>> Visual Studio?
>>
>> I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
>> C'99 standard.
>
> Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?
May I conclude from the "silence" that there is, in fact, no compiler
completely compliant with the C'99 standard?

I don't believe we can stop you.

Whether that's a smart conclusion is another question entirely.
Should you read some of the many past threads in comp.lang.c on this
question (if the question is "compilers in general", and not
"compilers for MS Visual Studio" - a qualification you yourself
raised, but did not clarify in your most recent post), you'd see that
people have identified some implementations that claim to conform to
C99.

Indeed.
Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.
Which is true of say C90 too then.
Perhaps it would be better to ask what motivates the question. If I
were to tell you that the utterly obscure Foo compiler for the Bar
system complies with every word of the C99 standard, what good would
that do you?
Conformance in a vaccuum is clearly only of of many issues which
should be considered, agreed.
Or, conversely, if I were to say that I have found at
least one instance of non-compliance in every single existing
implementation?
Probably you can.
For me, what's useful to know is that five years after the standard
was published, very few implementations comply with it completely;
even more importantly *for me*, implementations I have to use do not
provide the new features of C99, and therefore the C99 standard is
largely irrelevant to the C I write and maintain. I'll be stuck with
C90 for the foreseeable future.
Some feel that's a good thing, but yes, some aspects to C99
are circular. I've pointed out previously that I feel it
will be C++ to bring about C99 popularity, but that's still
up in the air too.
(Actually, it's even worse than that, for some older products I
sometimes do maintenance work on; we have customer support agreements
for those which require that we continue to support *pre-standard*
implementations, so for example the code still has abominable
conditional compilation to suppress generating prototypes when
building for those archaic implementations. Simply ghastly.)

But often practical for those projects.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Eltee wrote:
Jonathan Burd wrote:
>xu*******@gmail.com wrote:
>>I want to know the current support status of c99 on Microsoft Visual
>>Studio. Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan to support c99 on
>>Visual Studio?
>I haven't come across any compiler completely compliant with the
>C'99 standard.
Do you mean in general or just for MS Visual Studio?
May I conclude from the "silence" that there is, in fact, no compiler
completely compliant with the C'99 standard?

I don't believe we can stop you.

Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.
I'm not demanding any hard proof. A word from an author/implementor/
producer would be fine.

Here's one: Comeau + Dinkumware. Will even give you the proof! :) :
See the thread tied to http://tinyurl.com/5wmxa
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <MP************************@news.verizon.net>,
Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <pa****************************@netactive.co.uk> ,
lk****@netactive.co.uk says...

You don't need 100% "compliance" for C99 to be useful.
You need something closer to it than what is currently available
if you need to write portable code that takes advantage of C99
features. If someone could publish a subset of C99 that is
commonly implemented on say 5 different C compilers that would
be useful. I haven't seen anything like a general trend to
implement any common subset, but I haven't searched for such
a trend either.

Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.
To increase to 5 compiles, toss in Intel, IBM, Compaq, etc.
With C89/90, the "compliance" is such that it is rare that you
can't get portable code to work on all of them.

That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote: ...

Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.

Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?

I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even claims C99
compliance for their implementations.

I'm not demanding any hard proof. A word from an
author/implementor/producer would be fine.

Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".

Pretty impressive, yes. Founding fa..., that is, members, heh?

What???
So now we have
"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
Anybody else?

We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Randy Howard]

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com says...

Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.
gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.
To increase to 5 compiles, toss in Intel, IBM, Compaq, etc.

Do they implement ALL of C99?

With C89/90, the "compliance" is such that it is rare that you
can't get portable code to work on all of them.

That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.

Exactly the point.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Greg Comeau wrote:

xuanbai98 wrote:

I want to know the current support status
of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.

Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.

Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
to support c99 on Visual Studio?

To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.

Why should C programmers confine themselves
to the capabilities of and inferior product
like Microsoft Visual Studio?

Why don't they just dump it?
An switch to a C99 compliant implementation?

[Michael Mair]

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

xuanbai98 wrote:

I want to know the current support status
of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.

Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.

Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
to support c99 on Visual Studio?

To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.

Why should C programmers confine themselves
to the capabilities of and inferior product
like Microsoft Visual Studio?

Because their company provides it and says this or nothing.

Why don't they just dump it?
An switch to a C99 compliant implementation?

Oh, so you did buy the Comeau compiler and the Dinkumware
library on your own and dropped non-conforming gcc?

Maybe we now will more often see quality posts from you.
-Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[Eltee]

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

pj*@plauger.com wrote:

Eltee wrote:
I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even claims
C99 compliance for their implementations.

Uh, the EDG front end plus the Dinkum C Library has been C99 compliant
for several years now. ...
I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)

You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
claims from assorted implementors in other threads.

You failed to specify them, though.
Had you simply
searched for them you would have found them.
That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
<drumroll>share</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them. Wouldn't it have
been much easyer if you had just listed them? Because, you see, I have been in
too many situations where "somebody knew somebody", if you know what I mean.
For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
compiler conforms to C99.
Not in this thread, though. BTW: why didn't you say that in your first post in
this thread?
Of course, if you fail to look for conformance claims, and you ignore
suggestions to do so, then it's not odd that it will appear to you that
no one makes them.

[Eltee]

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

...

Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.

Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?

I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one even claims C99
compliance for their implementations.

I'm not demanding any hard proof. A word from an
author/implementor/producer would be fine.

Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".

Pretty impressive, yes. Founding fa..., that is, members, heh?

What???

http://www.comeaucomputing.com/ : Who is Comeau computing: "We are founding
members of the ANSI/ISO C++ committee".

I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed. Come to think of it: I mentioned the
no-no "word" again. Sorry.

So now we have
"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
Anybody else?

We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.

I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects. Would you care to
elaborate?

[Chris Croughton]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:48:37 GMT, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com says...

Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.

gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.

And doesn't provide the library, which is a large part of the
specification. GLIBC2 is a lot of the way there but still has some
deficiencies.

To increase to 5 compiles, toss in Intel, IBM, Compaq, etc.

Do they implement ALL of C99?

Do Compaq have their own compiler?

>With C89/90, the "compliance" is such that it is rare that you
>can't get portable code to work on all of them.

That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.

Exactly the point.

Unless anyone who might want to use my code can use it with their
existing compiler and library, there is no point in my code using any
form of extension to C89. I do, for instance, use some gcc extensions
in code which I know is only intended for use on Unix-like platforms
where gcc is available, but that code is typically unessential things or
ones which can be implemented easily on a compiler which doesn't support
them[1]. There is no point in my using features which require the
instalation of a proprietary compiler and library (it's like web pages
which insist that they can be viewed only with MSIE), unless I can
provide replacements and autoconfiguration to use my versions if the C99
ones are absent (like the types int stdint.h).

[1] Examples: gcc's __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ for tracing code, detecting the
maximum integer size, detecting whether gcc or C99 variable length
arrays are supported...

Chris C

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:04:32 +0100, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
<drumroll>share</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them. Wouldn't it have
been much easyer if you had just listed them? Because, you see, I have been in
too many situations where "somebody knew somebody", if you know what I mean.

Then how could you possibly accept the word of an unknown who thinks
he might remember something? Or should we assume that you are
incapable of doing your own search, even when given the newsgroup to
search in?

You can expect guidance here, but you can't expect people to do all
the work for you.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)
You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
claims from assorted implementors in other threads.

You failed to specify them, though.

It's not my job to do your research for you. You were wrong; I
pointed out that you were wrong, and noted where you could find the
necessary evidence. Your laziness does not refute my argument.

Had you simply searched for them you would have found them.

That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
<drumroll>share</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them.

Try reading for comprehension. I told you that *I had posted at
least one example disproving your thesis* in a previous thread, in
this group. That's what you needed, and failed, to search for.

The necessary information had already been shared.

And if you think any of this has anything to do with zero-knowledge
proofs, you're sadly mistaken.
Wouldn't it have been much easyer if you had just listed them?
Easier for you, perhaps. I don't have any particular motive to make
things easy for you.

For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
compiler conforms to C99.

Not in this thread, though.

Yes, that's what I meant by "in other threads".
BTW: why didn't you say that in your first post in this thread?

Because it should have been sufficient, for any moderately capable
and reasonable reader, to note simply that the relevant information
was available in the archives. And that is what I did.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

As always, great patience and a clean work area are required for fulfillment
of this diversion, and it should not be attempted if either are compromised.
-- Chris Ware

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com (Greg Comeau) writes:

In article <cs********@news1.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mw*****@newsguy.com> wrote:

Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.

Which is true of say C90 too then.

Agreed. IMO it's not very useful to ask about proof of compliance;
what's useful is to ask whether the vendor has committed to a
compliant implementation, how far they should be trusted to have
provided one, and how likely they are to deal promptly with problems.

Or, conversely, if I were to say that I have found at
least one instance of non-compliance in every single existing
implementation?

Probably you can.

Not me - I'm too lazy. :-)

(Actually, it's even worse than that, for some older products I
sometimes do maintenance work on; we have customer support agreements
for those which require that we continue to support *pre-standard*
implementations, so for example the code still has abominable
conditional compilation to suppress generating prototypes when
building for those archaic implementations. Simply ghastly.)

But often practical for those projects.

True, it's practical, in the sense that we can support those customers
and collect revenue from them. I think it probably makes business
sense; even if the revenue from those platforms isn't sufficient to
recoup the costs of supporting them (and I really have no idea whether
it is), there's value in a reputation for providing long-term support.

It's just ugly, and of course there are some risks (due to argument
promotions) if build errors lead to a mix of prototyped and non-
prototyped modules.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Let's say the conservative is the quiet green grin of the crocodile ...
an' the liberal is the SNAP! -- Walt Kelly

[lawrence.jones]

Greg Comeau <co****@panix.com> wrote:

That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.

It certainly started quicker, but I'm not sure that it finished any
quicker. Nearly every implementation touted "ANSI Compatibility" before
the ANSI standard was even finalized, which left them between a rock and
a hard place once the final standard was approved and turned out to be
slightly different from what they had implemented and their user base
now depended on (sound familiar?). Although most implentations were
mostly conforming (if such a thing is possible) fairly quickly, it took
a long time for all of them to get to the point where they were supposed
to be fully conforming. And there were a few that took a long time to
even get started, mostly implementations that were entrenched monopolies
with little or no competition to spur them on (which describes most
extant implementations). There were also some memorable bloopers, like
the implementation whose sole ANSI feature was that it defined __STDC__
as 1!

-Larry Jones

In short, open revolt and exile is the only hope for change? -- Calvin

[lawrence.jones]

Randy Howard <ra*********@fooverizonbar.net> wrote:

If someone could publish a subset of C99 that is
commonly implemented on say 5 different C compilers that would
be useful.

Inline functions, C++ style comments, and long long?

-Larry Jones

Apparently I was misinformed. -- Calvin

[Greg Comeau]

In article <MP************************@news.verizon.net>,
Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com says...

Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.

gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.

I feel like I've been tricked. Maybe I misunderstood,
but I thought somebody was asking for a subset of C99 that
could be used across multiple compilers and on multiple
platforms. gcc is definitely not a full c99 compiler,
but I think can meet the _substandard_ 5 features or whatever
that was being requested.

To increase to 5 compiles, toss in Intel, IBM, Compaq, etc.

Do they implement ALL of C99?

It's my understanding that those 3 do, or bugs notwithstanding,
at least intend do (which is different than the case of gcc).

>With C89/90, the "compliance" is such that it is rare that you
>can't get portable code to work on all of them.

That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.

Exactly the point.

I'm not convined it's exactly the point, even though I said it,
I just thing it's one aspect of many that leaps out as being
more true than false.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <ct**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>,
E. Robert Tisdale <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

xuanbai98 wrote:

I want to know the current support status
of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.
Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.

Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
to support c99 on Visual Studio?

To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.

Why should C programmers confine themselves
to the capabilities of and inferior product
like Microsoft Visual Studio?

Many reasons.
Why don't they just dump it?
Many people don't have that choice.
An switch to a C99 compliant implementation?

For many people, C99 doesn't offer the umph that
other "releases of C" have been able to provide,
even when not using an MS C compiler.

I'm trying to be the messager above, so I'm trying
to stay neutral on the provacative aspects of your post.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>Michael Wojcik wrote:
...
>Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.
Define what you mean by "compliant". Are there any C90 compliant
compilers out there, provably?
I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one
even claims C99 compliance for their implementations.
>I'm not demanding any hard proof. A word from an
>author/implementor/producer would be fine.

Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".

Pretty impressive, yes. Founding fa..., that is, members, heh?
What???

http://www.comeaucomputing.com/ : Who is Comeau computing: "We are
founding members of the ANSI/ISO C++ committee".

We are.
I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed.

Maybe I'm too biased, but I don't see it.
Fail free to explain, or equally let's just move on.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>Michael Wojcik wrote:
Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
"compliant".
So now we have
"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
Anybody else?

We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.

I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
Would you care to elaborate?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Generally speaking,
all Standards have conflicting statments, ambiguities,
typos, missed intention, outright errors, etc. C90
had them as does C99. If this is not what you're asking,
elaborate on what your interest in the defects is/are,
and what you would like elaborated, and I'm sure folks
here will chime in appropriately.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <sl******************@ccserver.keris.net>,
Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:48:37 GMT, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com says...

Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.

gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.

And doesn't provide the library, which is a large part of the
specification. GLIBC2 is a lot of the way there but still has some
deficiencies.

This suggestion is not intended to change the above fact,
but it's worth pointing out that in addition to use with
Comeau on various platforms, that Dinkumware's C99 library
is available for use with gcc too on various platforms.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Greg Comeau wrote:

I'm trying to be the messager above, so I'm trying
to stay neutral on the provacative aspects of your post.

You are *not* neutral.
You promote a product that competes with Microsoft Visual Studio.
You might claim to be "objective"
but you are obliged to divulge your biases and self interest.

[Eltee]

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Lawrence Kirby wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>
>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>
>Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
>"compliant".

So now we have
"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
Anybody else?

We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.
I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
Would you care to elaborate?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

I was wondering if you knew any defects in ISO C99 standard. If you do (you
should, since you implemented a compliant compiler), please tell us.
Generally speaking,
all Standards have conflicting statments, ambiguities,
typos, missed intention, outright errors, etc. C90
had them as does C99. If this is not what you're asking,
elaborate on what your interest in the defects is/are,
and what you would like elaborated, and I'm sure folks
here will chime in appropriately.

[Eltee]

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:

I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)

You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
claims from assorted implementors in other threads.
You failed to specify them, though.

It's not my job to do your research for you.

Of course not. Just like it's not your job to point out that I was wrong.
Neither is noting where I can find the "necessary evidence". Yet you chose to do
that. Instead of a couple of words (names, urls, whatever) that could resolve
the "issue" in a second, you chose to lecture me about lazyness, incomprehension
and whatnot. Are you always so friendly or just in this case?
You were wrong; I
pointed out that you were wrong, and noted where you could find the
necessary evidence. Your laziness does not refute my argument.

Had you simply searched for them you would have found them.
That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
<drumroll>share</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them.

Try reading for comprehension. I told you that *I had posted at
least one example disproving your thesis*

My _thesis_? That's a bit strong of a word, don't you find?
in a previous thread, in
this group. That's what you needed, and failed, to search for.

The necessary information had already been shared.

And if you think any of this has anything to do with zero-knowledge
proofs, you're sadly mistaken.

Wouldn't it have been much easyer if you had just listed them?

Easier for you, perhaps. I don't have any particular motive to make
things easy for you.

Thanks a million, Michael.

For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
compiler conforms to C99.

Not in this thread, though.

Yes, that's what I meant by "in other threads".

BTW: why didn't you say that in your first post in this thread?

Because it should have been sufficient, for any moderately capable
and reasonable reader, to note simply that the relevant information
was available in the archives. And that is what I did.

Thanks again, your Michaelness. I'm forever in your debt. Not.

[Eltee]

Alan Balmer wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:04:32 +0100, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
<drumroll>share</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them. Wouldn't it have
been much easyer if you had just listed them? Because, you see, I have been in
too many situations where "somebody knew somebody", if you know what I mean.

Then how could you possibly accept the word of an unknown who thinks
he might remember something? Or should we assume that you are
incapable of doing your own search, even when given the newsgroup to
search in?

You can expect guidance here, but you can't expect people to do all
the work for you.

All the work? If this wasn't funny it'd be tragical. This is comp.lang._C_,
isn't it? People in here should know something about C, shouldn't they? Well, if
this whole business wasn't just academic they should know about compilers, too.
Especially those that adhere to the standard. I never realized that listing some
of those would be such an unthinkable thing to ask.

[BRG]

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

xuanbai98 wrote:

I want to know the current support status
of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.

Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.

Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
to support c99 on Visual Studio?

To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.

Why should C programmers confine themselves
to the capabilities of and inferior product
like Microsoft Visual Studio?

They might not get to make the choice. Or they might not share your
view of VC++.

Brian Gladman

[CBFalconer]

Eltee wrote:

Alan Balmer wrote:

.... snip ...

You can expect guidance here, but you can't expect people to do
all the work for you.

All the work? If this wasn't funny it'd be tragical. This is
comp.lang._C_, isn't it? People in here should know something
about C, shouldn't they? Well, if this whole business wasn't just
academic they should know about compilers, too. Especially those
that adhere to the standard. I never realized that listing some
of those would be such an unthinkable thing to ask.

Because specific compilers are not the subject of the group. If
you had taken the trouble to lurk for a short time you would have
both known that and have seen various references to compilers. You
have another chance by looking through the references in my sig
below.

--
Some useful references:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> C-library

[Chris Croughton]

On 26 Jan 2005 20:02:20 -0500, Greg Comeau
<co****@panix.com> wrote:

In article <sl******************@ccserver.keris.net>,
Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:48:37 GMT, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote:

In article <ct**********@panix2.panix.com>, co****@panix.com says...
Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.

gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.

And doesn't provide the library, which is a large part of the
specification. GLIBC2 is a lot of the way there but still has some
deficiencies.

This suggestion is not intended to change the above fact,
but it's worth pointing out that in addition to use with
Comeau on various platforms, that Dinkumware's C99 library
is available for use with gcc too on various platforms.

Where is it stated which versions of gcc and which platforms? I can
find the price ($135 per user for the "Single User License" -- which I
can't find stated on their site) and a vague statement that the
libraries can be configured for "several compilers on Windows, Unix,
Linux, and Mac OS/X" but not which ones (Debian 'stable'? Gentoo?
Cygwin?). Or there's the source licence for $600 which presumably will
compile on any C89 and later compiler (but presumably also needs to know
about system 'hooks'). Whether the users of applications compiled with
those libraries also need to buy the libraries I can't find (it's
probably in the licence which I can't find on that site).

Plus a lot of programmers in the Real World(tm) have to work with the
library supplied by the customer, they can't just use another library
which might not be compatible with the customer's other software and
bought-in 3rd-party libraries.

Chris C

[S.Tobias]

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
Would you care to elaborate?

Why particularly? What's so interesting in the defects? You had better
get yourself seriously interested in the Standard in the first place.
If you did, you wouldn't ask such idiotic questions here.
I was wondering if you knew any defects in ISO C99 standard. If you do (you
should, since you implemented a compliant compiler), please tell us.

Were you born this Christmas? If you're so "particularly" interested,
haven't you heard of TC1 and 2 at least? Google not working? Don't you
read c.s.c.? Is WG14 page down or is it too hard for you to find any
DRs there?

--
Stan Tobias
mailx `echo si***@FamOuS.BedBuG.pAlS.INVALID | sed s/[[:upper:]]//g`

[Eltee]

S.Tobias wrote:

Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
Would you care to elaborate?

Why particularly? What's so interesting in the defects?
Why indeed. Why are people interested in having defects corrected? Why are we
interested in having bugs fixed? Heck if I know. It's probably in our nature.
Not that I care too much but if you want to keep using faulty software /
machinery, be my guest. Just don't cry later on when something goes ... well,
not quite as expected.
You had better
get yourself seriously interested in the Standard in the first place.
This is a good start, isn't it? Getting to know the defects.
If you did, you wouldn't ask such idiotic questions here.
Yeah, right.

So I'm only allowed to ask quesions to which I know the answers already (after a
looooooooong study of the standard in this case)? I think that having the
(alleged) defects (of the ISO C standard) exposed is quite on-topic in this NG.
Besides, I wasn't even aware that there were any (defects). I learned that fact
in this NG. In this particular thread, for that matter.

Are those defects a c.l.c-taboo or something?
I was wondering if you knew any defects in ISO C99 standard. If you do (you
should, since you implemented a compliant compiler), please tell us.

Were you born this Christmas?

What's a Christmas? I bet it's off topic in here.
If you're so "particularly" interested,
haven't you heard of TC1 and 2 at least? Google not working?
Google working good, thank you very much. In fact, I don't know if this NG even
deserves to be alive anymore. Google outdoes it in every aspect. Oh, well, maybe
it can serve as a meeting point for those ol'-c-geeks who want to avoid going
through too many cold turkeys.
Don't you
read c.s.c.? Is WG14 page down or is it too hard for you to find any
DRs there?

64

[Greg Comeau]

In article <ct**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>,
E. Robert Tisdale <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

I'm trying to be the messager above, so I'm trying
to stay neutral on the provacative aspects of your post.

You are *not* neutral.

You promote a product that competes with Microsoft Visual Studio.
You might claim to be "objective"
but you are obliged to divulge your biases and self interest.

When push comes to shove, none of us are neutral,
though perhaps not all equally.

I was answering this particular point in general, as a legacy code
or management issue, not as an MS question in and of itself
because we could probably plug in each vendor for some definition
of why people doing this or that, and hence said divulgance didn't
need to come into play, this time around. Or so I though.

Generally though, I agree with you, and I do often go out
of my way for that, and in fact, find myself not even posting
sometimes because of perceived twistings that otherwise would
not have any special significance.

Anyway, we're getting _pretty far_ away from C...
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:

In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Greg Comeau wrote:
In article <35*************@individual.net>, Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
>>"compliant".
>So now we have
>"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
>Anybody else?
We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.

I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
Would you care to elaborate?
I'm not sure what you're asking.

I was wondering if you knew any defects in ISO C99 standard.

Sure.
If you do (you should, since you implemented a compliant compiler),
please tell us.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...cs/summary.htm
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?