Downloadable standards file?

[Jim Cook]

I previously had asked if there was an online standards file so I could
read that and answer my own questions without posting here and getting
flamed for not having done my homework.

I was pointed to a file called n1124.pdf which turns out to be a C99
standard. It appears that quoting from that standard makes a lot of
people say "but C99 isn't widely supported, so C90 is what you ought to do."

Is there a C90 file I can download for free and cross reference with my
C99 one?

I have seen the FAQ 11.2 that says it's available for purchase. Given
that the C99/N1124.PDF appeared to be free from
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1124.pdf, I was hoping
that there was at least a "good enough" C90 one also for free.

(Aside: if the consensus is to reject the new standard, why should one
be created? Do the people who say to use C90 really think it's better to
lock C forever to that? If my compiler is C99, shouldn't I be encouraged
to conform to that standard?)

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.

The web page for lcc-win32, <http://www.cs.virginia .edu/~lcc-win32/>,
mentions nothing other than MS Windows.

The lcc compiler on which lcc-win32 is based,
<http://www.cs.princeto n.edu/software/lcc/>, supports more platforms,
but doesn't have much in the way of C99 support as far as I can tell
from a quick look at the web page. In particular, the FAQ says:

| Q. Does lcc support the long long type?
|
| A. Yes, lcc 4.1 supports long long, but all of its backends currently
| use the same representation for long and long long, i.e., 32 bits
| on 32-bit targets and 64 bits on 64-bit targets.

Making long long 32 bits hardly seems to indicate that the maintainers
are working very hard on C99 conformance. (I'd much rather have
"long long" rejected as a syntax error than have the compiler quietly
make it 32 bits.)

Am I missing something? (If I am, then so is anyone else who looks at
the web pages; if a feature isn't advertised, it might as well not
exist.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) 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.

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@s pamcop.netwrite s:

On 15 Dec 2006 23:59:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>>In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgw rote:

>>>C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.

And C90 is no longer an ISO standard.

Since it's clearly still a standard, but not a de jure standard,
it must be a de facto standard.

mhm.

>>Like, say, gcc...

False extrapolation. gcc is an implementation of a standardised
language.

It depends on how you look at it. In one sense, gcc implements the
C90 standard (modulo bugs), and partially implements the C99 standard.
In another sense, the language that gcc supports by default (C with a
number of extensions) can be considered to be a distinct language, or
at least a distinct dialect.

From the latter point of view, this:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
printf("%s\n", ({ char *s = "xxHello, world"; s + 2;}));
return 0;
}

is not a C program, but it is a GNU C program. GNU C is a language
based on C, as C++ and Objective-C are.

I don't want to start an argument about what is and is not C, or what
the terms "language" and "dialect" mean, merely to mention that there
is another perspective.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) 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.

[jacob navia]

Keith Thompson a écrit :

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>>The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.

The web page for lcc-win32, <http://www.cs.virginia .edu/~lcc-win32/>,
mentions nothing other than MS Windows.

The lcc compiler on which lcc-win32 is based,
<http://www.cs.princeto n.edu/software/lcc/>, supports more platforms,
but doesn't have much in the way of C99 support as far as I can tell
from a quick look at the web page. In particular, the FAQ says:

| Q. Does lcc support the long long type?
|
| A. Yes, lcc 4.1 supports long long, but all of its backends currently
| use the same representation for long and long long, i.e., 32 bits
| on 32-bit targets and 64 bits on 64-bit targets.

Making long long 32 bits hardly seems to indicate that the maintainers
are working very hard on C99 conformance. (I'd much rather have
"long long" rejected as a syntax error than have the compiler quietly
make it 32 bits.)

Am I missing something? (If I am, then so is anyone else who looks at
the web pages; if a feature isn't advertised, it might as well not
exist.)

There are versions for

o Windows 64 bits
o Linux 64 bits and Linux 32 bits
o Power PC 64 bits

This is not the original version of lcc, that is C89, but lcc-win32
with all the stupid extensions like true 64 bits long long, and
other C99 support. No they are not advertised in that web page because
they are sold, not given away for free.

[Randy Howard]

jacob navia wrote
(in article <45************ **********@news .orange.fr>):

Keith Thompson a écrit :

>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>>The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.

The web page for lcc-win32, <http://www.cs.virginia .edu/~lcc-win32/>,
mentions nothing other than MS Windows.

The lcc compiler on which lcc-win32 is based,
<http://www.cs.princeto n.edu/software/lcc/>, supports more platforms,
but doesn't have much in the way of C99 support as far as I can tell
from a quick look at the web page. In particular, the FAQ says:

>>Q. Does lcc support the long long type?

A. Yes, lcc 4.1 supports long long, but all of its backends currently
use the same representation for long and long long, i.e., 32 bits
on 32-bit targets and 64 bits on 64-bit targets.

Making long long 32 bits hardly seems to indicate that the maintainers
are working very hard on C99 conformance. (I'd much rather have
"long long" rejected as a syntax error than have the compiler quietly
make it 32 bits.)

Am I missing something? (If I am, then so is anyone else who looks at
the web pages; if a feature isn't advertised, it might as well not
exist.)

There are versions for

o Windows 64 bits
o Linux 64 bits and Linux 32 bits
o Power PC 64 bits

This is not the original version of lcc, that is C89, but lcc-win32
with all the stupid extensions like true 64 bits long long, and
other C99 support. No they are not advertised in that web page because
they are sold, not given away for free.

So your point is that I should buy your compiler, for C99
support on a tiny subset of the platforms I'm interested in, so
I can have C99 support I don't need, instead of the free or
commercial compilers I have already purchased that fulfill all
my needs from them already?

Is it even legal to sell it? I note in particular from the lcc
Copyright message the following:

"You may not sell lcc or any product derived from it in which it
is a significant part of the value of the product. Using the lcc
front end to build a C syntax checker is an example of this kind
of product."

You compiler is obviously a lot more based upon their compiler
than a syntax checker would be.

So, you admit publicly to selling a product, which by your own
description appears to be a clear violation of the copyright
under which the code is it based on was provided to you? IANAL,
but it's difficult to imagine how that isn't what I just saw
happen here.

>

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

[jacob navia]

Randy Howard a écrit :

jacob navia wrote

>>There are versions for

o Windows 64 bits
o Linux 64 bits and Linux 32 bits
o Power PC 64 bits

This is not the original version of lcc, that is C89, but lcc-win32
with all the stupid extensions like true 64 bits long long, and
other C99 support. No they are not advertised in that web page because
they are sold, not given away for free.

So your point is that I should buy your compiler, for C99
support on a tiny subset of the platforms I'm interested in, so
I can have C99 support I don't need, instead of the free or
commercial compilers I have already purchased that fulfill all
my needs from them already?

I am not selling anything to you. Is that clear?

Is it even legal to sell it? I note in particular from the lcc
Copyright message the following:

"You may not sell lcc or any product derived from it in which it
is a significant part of the value of the product. Using the lcc
front end to build a C syntax checker is an example of this kind
of product."

You compiler is obviously a lot more based upon their compiler
than a syntax checker would be.

I have rewritten most of it. But see below.

So, you admit publicly to selling a product, which by your own
description appears to be a clear violation of the copyright
under which the code is it based on was provided to you? IANAL,
but it's difficult to imagine how that isn't what I just saw
happen here.

This is NONE of your business. It is MY business. And I have
BOUGHT THE COPYRIGHT from the editor of lcc for a SUBSTANTIAL
quantity of money. I am still paying that loan.

I am not a thief, and you are just somebody that feels a need
to discharge your aggressions (like many people in this group).
against me. I work, I do not just stay around, I try to contribute
to the C community.

Jealous people are to be expected.

I understand your point of view:

" Jacob tries to improve the language, works like a fool,
distributes the compiler under windows for free, that's obviously
a THIEF, and whatever else I want to imagine."

You are just wrong Mr.

What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

This brings me the aggressions of many people like you here,
that always have "STANDARD C" in their mouths but never contribute
anything to the community.

You like gcc. That's OK. Obviously you do not like the improvements
they did, even if many of them were included in the C99 standard
later.

What have you contributed to gcc?

jacob

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

This brings me the aggressions of many people like you here,
that always have "STANDARD C" in their mouths but never contribute
anything to the community.

[...]

Saying that the current standard is C99 is fine. What annoys me
(speaking only for myself) is your repeated assertion that C90 is
off-topic in this newsgroup.

Trying to implement C99 in lcc-win32 is great. Trying to tell us that
we should discuss *only* C99 in this newsgroup is not. The fact that
your own compiler does not fully implement the C99 standard just adds
to the irony. If I listened to you, I would just write code that
freely uses C99 features such as, say designated initializers -- and I
wouldn't be able to compile it if I chose to use your compiler.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) 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.

[jacob navia]

Keith Thompson a écrit :

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>>What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

This brings me the aggressions of many people like you here,
that always have "STANDARD C" in their mouths but never contribute
anything to the community.

[...]

Saying that the current standard is C99 is fine. What annoys me
(speaking only for myself) is your repeated assertion that C90 is
off-topic in this newsgroup.

Trying to implement C99 in lcc-win32 is great. Trying to tell us that
we should discuss *only* C99 in this newsgroup is not. The fact that
your own compiler does not fully implement the C99 standard just adds
to the irony. If I listened to you, I would just write code that
freely uses C99 features such as, say designated initializers -- and I
wouldn't be able to compile it if I chose to use your compiler.

This is not what I said!

< QUOTE FROM MY ANSWER >

The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

There is a group of people here that think that C should be as
backward looking as possible, they reject C99 want to come to 1989
and maybe even earlier.

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

< END QUOTE>

NOWHERE did I say that C90 is "OFF TOPIC" and I am NOT KNOWN for being a
traffic cop here. I do not remember ever arguing with "off topic"
arguments.

I argue with other arguments (correct or incorrect as you like)
but not "off topic" stuff.

Personally of course, I believe C90 is obsolete, as the standard
organization says. But if someone speaks about C90 (or MSDOS
or whatever!) I do not say that has nothing to do with C (within
limits of course).

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:

Keith Thompson a écrit :

>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:
[...]

>>>What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

This brings me the aggressions of many people like you here,
that always have "STANDARD C" in their mouths but never contribute
anything to the community.

[...]
Saying that the current standard is C99 is fine. What annoys me
(speaking only for myself) is your repeated assertion that C90 is
off-topic in this newsgroup.
Trying to implement C99 in lcc-win32 is great. Trying to tell us
that
we should discuss *only* C99 in this newsgroup is not. The fact that
your own compiler does not fully implement the C99 standard just adds
to the irony. If I listened to you, I would just write code that
freely uses C99 features such as, say designated initializers -- and I
wouldn't be able to compile it if I chose to use your compiler.

This is not what I said!

Then perhaps I've misunderstood you.

< QUOTE FROM MY ANSWER >

The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

There is a group of people here that think that C should be as
backward looking as possible, they reject C99 want to come to 1989
and maybe even earlier.

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

< END QUOTE>

NOWHERE did I say that C90 is "OFF TOPIC" and I am NOT KNOWN for being a
traffic cop here. I do not remember ever arguing with "off topic"
arguments.

I argue with other arguments (correct or incorrect as you like)
but not "off topic" stuff.

Ok, but here's something else you wrote in this very thread:
| IBM Provides a C99 compiler for AIX. HPUX and TRUE64 use Compaq C, that
| provides C99 support as they say in their web page.
| SCO I do not know, but Windows you have many compilers with C99
| support.
|
|
| In any case I do not want to force you to use C99, but we are
| discussing C here, not portability.
|
| This NOT comp.lang.porta ble (as far as I see)

You emphasized that C99 is the current standard, and I inferred from
your mention of "comp.lang.port able" that you feel that comp.lang.c
should only discuss the C language as defined by the current standard.

Personally of course, I believe C90 is obsolete, as the standard
organization says.

What exactly do you mean by "obsolete"? It's quite obvious to me that
the C90 standard is *not* obsolete, in any reasonable sense of the
word, for reasons that have been discussed at great length.

But if someone speaks about C90 (or MSDOS
or whatever!) I do not say that has nothing to do with C (within
limits of course).

No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) 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.

[jacob navia]

Keith Thompson a écrit :

No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.

If we go on saying that the C99 standard will be never
implemented. Since too little was done to improve the
language in C99, the few improvements it brings
will be gone. We stay then with a language that doesn't
evolve, completely frozen.

This arranges all people that see C++ as the future,
and all people that think C is a dead end.

I have tried to go against this trend, by implementing
as far as I could C99 features and offering other possibilities within
the context of C.

Of course people that are interested in maintaining code bases
that are no longer being developed do not want anything
like that, hence the clashes here.

This group is not for portabilitry PER SE. Portability is ONE
of the features by which a software can be measured. Many OTHERS
exist like efficiency, effort needed to maintain it, etc etc.

I am against making "portabilit y" by the smallest common
denominator the law here. That is the reason for my attitude.

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrites:

Keith Thompson a écrit :

>No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.

If we go on saying that the C99 standard will be never
implemented. Since too little was done to improve the
language in C99, the few improvements it brings
will be gone. We stay then with a language that doesn't
evolve, completely frozen.

This arranges all people that see C++ as the future,
and all people that think C is a dead end.

I have tried to go against this trend, by implementing
as far as I could C99 features and offering other possibilities within
the context of C.

Of course people that are interested in maintaining code bases
that are no longer being developed do not want anything
like that, hence the clashes here.

This group is not for portabilitry PER SE. Portability is ONE
of the features by which a software can be measured. Many OTHERS
exist like efficiency, effort needed to maintain it, etc etc.

I am against making "portabilit y" by the smallest common
denominator the law here. That is the reason for my attitude.

Nobody here, as far as I've seen, says that C is a dead end (except
perhaps for a few trolls); that's a figment of your imagination.

It is a fact that C99 has not been widely adopted. Programmers *must*
take that fact into account in deciding whether to use C99-specific
features. Maximum portability is achieved by writing code in the
subset of C90 and C99 (basically C90 code that avoids the new C99
keywords). (Note that such code is also valid C99 code.)

People point this out, and you complain about it.

I, for one, would be happer if C99 *were* as widely available as C90
is, and I'm sure a lot of other people here feel the same way. But
since I'm not a compiler implementer, I have no real influence over
that. I applaud you for the part you're playing in helping that to
happen. But your whining about the fact that some of us insist on
acknowledging the current reality does not do the cause any good.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) 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.