By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,681 Members | 1,806 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,681 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Can I buy C99 with TC1 and TC2 already taken effect in it?

P: n/a
Hello C-goers,

Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?

If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
to get answers?

Nov 14 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
20 Replies


P: n/a
In article <11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
Romeo Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
Hello C-goers,

Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?
No.

If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
to get answers?


Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's rolled
into it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #2

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:


Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
rolled into it [C99 standard document].


What is C05?

Nov 14 '05 #3

P: n/a
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, Romeo
Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:


Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
rolled into it [C99 standard document].


What is C05?

The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #4

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
ww*****@gmail.com says...
Hello C-goers,

Been using last C99 draft for a while now and want to purchase actual
C99 standard from ANSI. I know there are two technical corrigendum
documents standardized too, which are freely available. My question
is, if I buy the C99 standard right now, will the corrections from TC1
and TC2 already have been taken place on the document?
You can get it in book form with TC1 and the Rationale. (Wiley)
If not, does everyone find it difficult playing around with 3 documents
to get answers?


Since it is very unlikely you have a C99 compiler anyway, it probably
isn't that big of a deal.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
Nov 14 '05 #5

P: n/a
In article <D0**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, ch***@phaedsys.org says...
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, Romeo
Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:


Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
rolled into it [C99 standard document].


What is C05?

The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
Nov 14 '05 #6

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@news.verizon.net>, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes
In article <D0**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, ch***@phaedsys.org says...
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, Romeo
Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
>> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
>>
>
>What is C05?
>

The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.

I doubt it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #7

P: n/a
In article <rB**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, ch***@phaedsys.org says...
In article <MP************************@news.verizon.net>, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes
The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.

I doubt it.


Me too.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
Nov 14 '05 #8

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, Romeo Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:


Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
rolled into it [C99 standard document].


What is C05?

The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


Even after the new standard comes out, we're likely to see TCs
associated with it appear after that and (based on the C99) they won't
be rolled into the C05 document, which will continue to frustrate me.

Nov 14 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 16:53:27 +0000, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:
In article <MP************************@news.verizon.net>, Randy Howard
<ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes
In article <D0**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, ch***@phaedsys.org says...
In article <11*********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>, Romeo
Colacitti <ww*****@gmail.com> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes... so hopefully C05 will be a single document with both TC's
>> rolled into it [C99 standard document].
>>
>
>What is C05?
>
The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


With conforming compilers expected just after the rapture.

I doubt it.


Surely it's the conforming compilers which cause the rapture? O
frabjous day, calloo, callay, and all that...

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #10

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:

The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


Hmmm. There is already enough fragmentation as there is with many
compilers conforming to C89 only, other conforming to C89 plus some
ideas from C99 and a few that claim full C99 compatiblity.

Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.

So we're going to have 3 C standards in use in a few months, great!

Nov 14 '05 #11

P: n/a
In article <11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>, Luke
Wu <Lo***********@gmail.com> writes

Chris Hills wrote:
> The next version of the C standard.... 9899:2005 Which will hopefully
come out latter this year.


Hmmm. There is already enough fragmentation as there is with many
compilers conforming to C89 only, other conforming to C89


You mean ISO 9899:1990?... C90
plus some
ideas from C99 and a few that claim full C99 compatiblity.
Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.

So we're going to have 3 C standards in use in a few months, great!


No. There will be one standard. ISO 9899:2005. (which is 9899:1999 +
TC1 and TC2)

Though you are correct that 95% of the worlds compilers adhere to C90 +
the amendments (often informally refereed to as C95) with a few small
parts of C99 such as // for comments.

The embedded world will continue with C95ish I think. So you will have
two strands the embedded cross compilers on one tact and the "desktop"
compilers on the other. As people tend not to use both most people will
still only have one standard to contend with.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #12

P: n/a

Chris Hills wrote:

Though you are correct that 95% of the worlds compilers adhere to C90 + the amendments (often informally refereed to as C95) with a few small parts of C99 such as // for comments.


Does anyone know where I can find a a C95ish document?

Nov 14 '05 #13

P: n/a
Luke Wu <Lo***********@gmail.com> wrote:

Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.


If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
(and perhaps some small editorial changes).

-Larry Jones

I wonder what's on TV now. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #14

P: n/a
In article <e9************@jones.homeip.net>, la************@ugs.com
writes
Luke Wu <Lo***********@gmail.com> wrote:

Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.


If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
(and perhaps some small editorial changes).


That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
gets rolled into a new base document.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #15

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
In article <e9************@jones.homeip.net>, la************@ugs.com
writes
Luke Wu <Lo***********@gmail.com> wrote:

Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.


If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
(and perhaps some small editorial changes).


That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
gets rolled into a new base document.


You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
correct.

--
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.
Nov 14 '05 #16

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:

That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
gets rolled into a new base document.


You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
correct.


Maybe not, but it /is/ accurate. It's about as accurate as saying that
"Winnie the Pooh" is nothing more than "Hamlet" with a couple of edits
(one rather large delete, and one rather large insert).
Nov 14 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 05:34:53 +0000 (UTC), infobahn
<in******@btinternet.com> wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
>
> That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
> gets rolled into a new base document.


You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
correct.


Maybe not, but it /is/ accurate. It's about as accurate as saying that
"Winnie the Pooh" is nothing more than "Hamlet" with a couple of edits
(one rather large delete, and one rather large insert).


And it's even kept the character name, albeit as a sidekick and with a
minor change ('pig' instead of 'ham'). But then I've heard the Denmark
play referred to as "The Little Pig" by Bill Wagglestick...

"What state is the code in?"
"Denmark! As in the first line of 'Hamlet'..."

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #18

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-
u@mib.org> writes
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
In article <e9************@jones.homeip.net>, la************@ugs.com
writes
Luke Wu <Lo***********@gmail.com> wrote:

Now they're going to throw C05 into the pile. I hope it's just a
clarification of C99 with some improvements to features that haven't be
adopted by most compilers.

If there is a C05, it will just be C99 with TC1 and TC2 incorporated
(and perhaps some small editorial changes).


That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
gets rolled into a new base document.


You're saying that the C99 standard is nothing more than the C90
standard with TCs and amendments rolled into it? I don't think that's
correct.


I thnin you are correct. There was more that just C90+ the bits in C99.
there would have been in C05 other than the TC2 was published before the
suggestion was put forward to do C05.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Nov 14 '05 #19

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

That is all C99 was to C90.... After so many amendments and TC's it all
gets rolled into a new base document.


That is completely wrong. C99 was a major revision of the C90 standard
that required significant development effort and included much new
material not from any previous amendment or corridenum. C05 (if there
is one) will just be a reprinting of C99 incorporating the changes from
TC1 and TC2 (and, perhaps, a few small editorial changes).

-Larry Jones

I just can't identify with that kind of work ethic. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #20

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

I thnin you are correct. There was more that just C90+ the bits in C99.
there would have been in C05 other than the TC2 was published before the
suggestion was put forward to do C05.


Would you like to try that again, perhaps in English this time?

-Larry Jones

Some people just don't have inquisitive minds. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #21

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.