By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,002 Members | 1,361 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,002 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Difference between C89 and C99?

P: n/a
I've seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I'd like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.
Nov 14 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
66 Replies


P: n/a
In article <d5**********@newshost.mot.com>, Jason Curl
<j_********@motorola.com> writes
I've seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I'd like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.


K&R 1st ed was the original C description from the 1970's
It is now obsolete as regards being the C language specification.

K&R 2nd Ed pub 1988 their book update to C89
C89 is an ANSI standard from dated 1989
C90 is the ISO version and the first International C standard
These three should be the same. K&R were on the ANSI panel that
produced [ANSI] C89 and that became ISO-C90

There have been various Amendments and TC's in 93,4,5 etc

In 1999 there was a new version of the ISO-C standard. C99.
The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.

If you want to write portable C I would use C99 with A1 and the TC's It
is where (AFAIK) most of the compilers are at. Of course it depends what
you are writing and what sort of portability you want. For portability
there could be far more important issues than sticking to ISO-C

BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee working
documents and therefore not accurate. They have been superseded by the
published standard and will not include any/some/all changes (if any)
after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N*** document is
like trying to write a legal document using a dictionary which may have
an arbitrary number of spelling mistakes and incorrect definitions in
it.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #2

P: n/a
Jason Curl <j_********@motorola.com> wrote:

I've seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I'd like to write code to be as portable as possible.


There's a brief listing of the new features in the Foreword of the C99
standard. The list is reproduced on the committee's web site:

<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/newinc9x.htm>

-Larry Jones

All girls should be shipped to Pluto--that's what I say. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #3

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
.... snip ...
BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee
working documents and therefore not accurate. They have been
superseded by the published standard and will not include
any/some/all changes (if any) after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N***
document is like trying to write a legal document using a
dictionary which may have an arbitrary number of spelling
mistakes and incorrect definitions in it.


However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

Nov 14 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:20:05 GMT, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.


Because they want to sell the PDF one to you as many times as possible?
With their licence I can't even have a copy on my desktop and one on my
laptop without paying twice. One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.

It's the same with the BSI standards, they want to charge lots of money
for them, text would be too easy to distribute...

(Has anyone produced a list of the differences between N869 and the
standard? I wonder if there actually are any significant ones, or
whether the "it's not accurate" is in fact FUD aimed at trying to sell
the standard...)

Personally I want my code to be portable, so I'm not knowingly using any
extensions later than C89, there are too many compilers and libraries
which aren't fully implementing C99 (and worse they each fail to
implement different bits). Yes, it would be lovely if everything was up
to date, but in the real world it isn't...

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #5

P: n/a


Chris Croughton wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:20:05 GMT, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:

However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.

Because they want to sell the PDF one to you as many times as possible?
With their licence I can't even have a copy on my desktop and one on my
laptop without paying twice. One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.


If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior? (If you're a United States citizen you need not
answer; there's this nice little loophole called the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, which says you cannot be
required to incriminate yourself ;-)

This strand of the thread seems to be straying from
topicality on comp.lang.c; comp.std.c might be a better
forum.

--
Er*********@sun.com

Nov 14 '05 #6

P: n/a

CBFalconer wrote:
However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.

This has been discussed many times in the past few years. Dan Pop was
of the opinion that N869 was just fine. There are non-trivial
differences, but if you make a mistake here based on one of those
differences someone will gleefully point it out. Then you can annotate
your copy so you don't make that mistake again. Of course, Dan was of
the opinion that he knew more C without an offical copy of the Standard
than some did *with* one.

Mostly we use the Standards for argumentation. I am sure some of you
are using the Standard daily for Very Important Work. You need not tell
me that.

Brian

Nov 14 '05 #7

P: n/a
CBFalconer wrote:
Chris Hills wrote:

.... snip ...
BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee
working documents and therefore not accurate. They have been
superseded by the published standard and will not include
any/some/all changes (if any) after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N***
document is like trying to write a legal document using a
dictionary which may have an arbitrary number of spelling
mistakes and incorrect definitions in it.

However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.


Probably the biggest interest is the different definitions of the
library. I would write all syntax using C89/90 as this is guaranteed to
work with C99 as well. The interesting bits would be what new
libraries/functions are available in C99 that aren't in C89?

Then using my development environment I can write functions for C99, and
test using a configuration script that can test if a particular set up
has a C99 implementation for a function or not.

Thanks for all comments.
Nov 14 '05 #8

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <d5**********@newshost.mot.com>, Jason Curl
<j_********@motorola.com> writes
I've seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I'd like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.

K&R 1st ed was the original C description from the 1970's
It is now obsolete as regards being the C language specification.

K&R 2nd Ed pub 1988 their book update to C89
C89 is an ANSI standard from dated 1989
C90 is the ISO version and the first International C standard
These three should be the same. K&R were on the ANSI panel that
produced [ANSI] C89 and that became ISO-C90

There have been various Amendments and TC's in 93,4,5 etc

In 1999 there was a new version of the ISO-C standard. C99.
The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.

If you want to write portable C I would use C99 with A1 and the TC's It
is where (AFAIK) most of the compilers are at. Of course it depends what
you are writing and what sort of portability you want. For portability
there could be far more important issues than sticking to ISO-C

BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee working
documents and therefore not accurate. They have been superseded by the
published standard and will not include any/some/all changes (if any)
after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N*** document is
like trying to write a legal document using a dictionary which may have
an arbitrary number of spelling mistakes and incorrect definitions in
it.


Does the C99 standard differentiate between what's also in C89 and
what's new?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:26:01 -0400, Eric Sosman
<er*********@sun.com> wrote:
Chris Croughton wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:20:05 GMT, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.
Because they want to sell the PDF one to you as many times as possible?
With their licence I can't even have a copy on my desktop and one on my
laptop without paying twice. One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.


If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior? (If you're a United States citizen you need not
answer; there's this nice little loophole called the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, which says you cannot be
required to incriminate yourself ;-)


"I'll take the Fifth." "Make mine a double!" <g>

My own behaviour? Probably not. But having it in a proprietary format
which allows protection does make it more difficult for those people who
do want to copy chunks into other formats.
This strand of the thread seems to be straying from
topicality on comp.lang.c; comp.std.c might be a better
forum.


Although it's not about Standard C, it's about the attitude of standards
bodies in general. Which is probably not on topic anywhere in comp.*...

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #10

P: n/a

In article <HZ**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:

The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.


You keep making this claim, Chris, but I've yet to see any evidence
from you that the implementations which do claim C99 compliance are
not in fact conforming. I can think of at least three such implemen-
tations being cited here:

- Comeau C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- Edison Design Group C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- HP Compaq C for OpenVMS for Alpha

Some others that claim conformance:

- IBM C for AIX v6
- Intel C v8, except for FP_CONTRACT, FENV_ACCESS, and
CX_LIMITED_RANGE
- Lund Multiprocessor Complier Company LMPCC C99 v1.3

EDG+Dinkumware and LMPCC have received CVSA certificates.

So, if you have evidence that none of these is conforming, please let
us know; and if not, you might want to try to be a little more
accurate in your claims.

Really, is it that much harder to say "C99 conforming implementations
are rare"?

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

She felt increasingly (vision or nightmare?) that, though people are
important, the relations between them are not, and that in particular
too much fuss has been made over marriage; centuries of carnal
embracement, yet man is no nearer to understanding man. -- E M Forster
Nov 14 '05 #11

P: n/a
Jason Curl wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:

.... snip ...

However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.


Probably the biggest interest is the different definitions of the
library. I would write all syntax using C89/90 as this is guaranteed
to work with C99 as well. The interesting bits would be what new
libraries/functions are available in C99 that aren't in C89?


The worst omission known to me is the absence of vsnprintf (or
something similar) in N869.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Nov 14 '05 #12

P: n/a
Michael Wojcik wrote:
Chris Hills writes:
The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.


You keep making this claim, Chris,
but I've yet to see any evidence from you
that the implementations which do claim C99 compliance
are not in fact conforming.
I can think of at least three such implementations being cited here:

- Comeau C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- Edison Design Group C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- HP Compaq C for OpenVMS for Alpha

Some others that claim conformance:

- IBM C for AIX v6
- Intel C v8, except for FP_CONTRACT, FENV_ACCESS, and
CX_LIMITED_RANGE
- Lund Multiprocessor Complier Company LMPCC C99 v1.3

EDG+Dinkumware and LMPCC have received CVSA certificates.

So, if you have evidence that none of these is conforming,
please let us know; and if not,
you might want to try to be a little more accurate in your claims.

Really, is it that much harder to say
"C99 conforming implementations are rare"?


What does "rare" mean?
It appears that you can get a C99 conforming compiler
for just about every platform that C programmers target.
If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
"C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."

I don't think that the resistance to the new standard
has anything to do with the availability of conforming compilers.
It's just an "olde fogyism".
Like everybody else, C programmers fear change as they get older.
They have resisted change and will continue to resist change
and younger programmers will just have to work around them
until they retire or die.
Nov 14 '05 #13

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
[...]
What does "rare" mean?
It appears that you can get a C99 conforming compiler
for just about every platform that C programmers target.
If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
"C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."


I hardly think that they're "ubiquitous". I know of some platforms
that are not likely *ever* to have a conforming C99 compiler (though
they're not platforms that most of you are likely to use), and the
most widespread C implementation, gcc, is not fully conforming (for
example, variable-length arrays, complex and imaginary support, and
inline functions are still marked as "broken", even in gcc 4.0.0).

--
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 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:38:51 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Croughton
<ch***@keristor.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:26:01 -0400, Eric Sosman
<er*********@sun.com> wrote:
Chris Croughton wrote:
One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.


If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior?


"I'll take the Fifth." "Make mine a double!" <g>


Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #15

P: n/a
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.


Because quite a lot of information is lost in translation -- much of the
typesetting is significant (e.g., italicized terms are definitions) and
the mathematical equations are not easily represented in plain text.
Although it would certainly be possible to create a usable text version,
it would require far more work than the volunteer editor is willing to
expend.

-Larry Jones

I've got an idea for a sit-com called "Father Knows Zilch." -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #16

P: n/a
Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> wrote:

Because they want to sell the PDF one to you as many times as possible?
Yes, that $18 sure adds up quick.
(Has anyone produced a list of the differences between N869 and the
standard? I wonder if there actually are any significant ones, or
whether the "it's not accurate" is in fact FUD aimed at trying to sell
the standard...)


Yes, there are significant changes. No, I don't know of any exhaustive
list.

-Larry Jones

Bad news, Mom. I promised my soul to the Devil this afternoon. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #17

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

K&R were on the ANSI panel that
produced [ANSI] C89 and that became ISO-C90


No, they weren't. K is primarily a writer and presumably wasn't
interested. R deliberately chose not to participate for fear of
exerting undue influence on the committee.

-Larry Jones

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere
in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:
[...]
Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ?
As far as I know it does, but I can't comment definitively.
If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


It's perfectly legal to distribute documents on paper, which makes it
even more difficult to copy small chunks of text than a protected PDF
document does. I don't think that copyright law requires the
copyright owner to make such copying easy (but of course IANAL).

For what it's worth, my PDF copy of the C99 standard (purchased from
ANSI) does allow copy-and-paste.

--
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 #19

P: n/a
On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:06:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:38:51 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Croughton
<ch***@keristor.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:26:01 -0400, Eric Sosman
<er*********@sun.com> wrote:
Chris Croughton wrote: One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.

If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior?
"I'll take the Fifth." "Make mine a double!" <g>


Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ?

If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


Copy and paste from the C99 standard (legally purchased PDF copy):
********
This International Standard specifies the form and establishes the
interpretation of
programs written in the C programming language.1) It specifies
********

Maybe the C++ standard? In any case, I don't know that it would be
illegal to prevent copying of "fair use" portions. Copy protection of
one kind or another has been used for many years on copyrighted
material. They might have to allow you to copy it, they don't have to
enable you to copy it. It's up to you to figure out how. Anyway, it
seems that "fair use" is now subservient to the DMCA.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net
Nov 14 '05 #20

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


ANSI's distribution method requires you to agree to a (somewhat
ludicrous) license that's more restrictive than copyright law, which is
perfectly legal.

-Larry Jones

I'm a genius. -- Calvin
Nov 14 '05 #21

P: n/a
In article <42***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:

... snip ...

BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee
working documents and therefore not accurate. They have been
superseded by the published standard and will not include
any/some/all changes (if any) after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N***
document is like trying to write a legal document using a
dictionary which may have an arbitrary number of spelling
mistakes and incorrect definitions in it.


However N869 is quite adequate for most purposes, as long as you
are willing to recognize the failings. It has the great advantage
of having a text version, which the actual standard still fails to
supply. A text version can be searched and manipulated with
ordinary tools. Why ISO/ANSI refused to publish an official text
version is beyond comprehension.


No... it makes perfect business sense to any one involved in licensing.
Their goals are not the same as yours. The are publishers not engineers.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #22

P: n/a
In article <d5**********@newshost.mot.com>, Jason Curl
<j_********@motorola.com> writes
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <d5**********@newshost.mot.com>, Jason Curl
<j_********@motorola.com> writes
I've seen the document N869.txt and the copy I could find talks about
C99. Is there anything that comprehensively describes the difference
between C89 and C99? I'd like to write code to be as portable as possible.

Thanks,
Jason.

K&R 1st ed was the original C description from the 1970's
It is now obsolete as regards being the C language specification.

K&R 2nd Ed pub 1988 their book update to C89
C89 is an ANSI standard from dated 1989
C90 is the ISO version and the first International C standard
These three should be the same. K&R were on the ANSI panel that
produced [ANSI] C89 and that became ISO-C90

There have been various Amendments and TC's in 93,4,5 etc

In 1999 there was a new version of the ISO-C standard. C99.
The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.

If you want to write portable C I would use C99 with A1 and the TC's It
is where (AFAIK) most of the compilers are at. Of course it depends what
you are writing and what sort of portability you want. For portability
there could be far more important issues than sticking to ISO-C

BTW
You should not be using any N*** document as these are committee working
documents and therefore not accurate. They have been superseded by the
published standard and will not include any/some/all changes (if any)
after the reviews.

Buy the standard if you want to work to it. Using an N*** document is
like trying to write a legal document using a dictionary which may have
an arbitrary number of spelling mistakes and incorrect definitions in
it.


Does the C99 standard differentiate between what's also in C89 and
what's new?


Not AFAIK
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <d5*********@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik
<mw*****@newsguy.com> writes

In article <HZ**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:

The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.
You keep making this claim, Chris, but I've yet to see any evidence
from you that the implementations which do claim C99 compliance are
not in fact conforming. I can think of at least three such implemen-
tations being cited here:

OK I stand corrected. C99 compilers are very Rare. How much of the
market do the three below cover? You do not list any mainstream systems.

- Comeau C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- Edison Design Group C plus the Dinkumware libraries
- HP Compaq C for OpenVMS for Alpha

Some others that claim conformance:

- IBM C for AIX v6
- Intel C v8, except for FP_CONTRACT, FENV_ACCESS, and
CX_LIMITED_RANGE
- Lund Multiprocessor Complier Company LMPCC C99 v1.3

EDG+Dinkumware and LMPCC have received CVSA certificates.

So, if you have evidence that none of these is conforming, please let
us know; and if not, you might want to try to be a little more
accurate in your claims.

Really, is it that much harder to say "C99 conforming implementations
are rare"?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:06:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:38:51 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Chris Croughton
<ch***@keristor.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:26:01 -0400, Eric Sosman
<er*********@sun.com> wrote:
Chris Croughton wrote: One of the standards (I don't remember if
it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard, it's in
some protected format.

If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior?


"I'll take the Fifth." "Make mine a double!" <g>


Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


These days the RIAA and DMCA seem to be not considering "fair use" a
factor, so I guess that if there is an international agreement the US
aren't now part of it. Although since they only prevent you doing it by
a convenient method (copy & paste) they could claim that you have the
same right of "fair use" as if it were a printed version (do it by hand
or take a photocopy or screen-shot), they don't have to make it easy for
you to do it.

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #25

P: n/a
In message <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:
I hardly think that they're "ubiquitous". I know of some platforms
that are not likely *ever* to have a conforming C99 compiler (though
they're not platforms that most of you are likely to use), and the
most widespread C implementation, gcc, is not fully conforming


But then gcc has never fully conformed to C90 either, so not much has
changed.

--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1728 727430
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
Nov 14 '05 #26

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
E. Robert Tisdale writes:
[...]
What does "rare" mean?
It appears that you can get a C99 conforming compiler
for just about every platform that C programmers target.
If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
"C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."


I hardly think that they're "ubiquitous".
I know of some platforms
that are not likely *ever* to have a conforming C99 compiler
(though they're not platforms that most of you are likely to use),
and the most widespread C implementation, gcc, is not fully conforming
(for example, variable-length arrays, complex and imaginary support
and inline functions are still marked as "broken", even in gcc 4.0.0).


Please show us an example of how gcc support for variable-length arrays
is "broken".
Nov 14 '05 #27

P: n/a
Kevin Bracey wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:
I hardly think that they're "ubiquitous". I know of some platforms
that are not likely *ever* to have a conforming C99 compiler (though
they're not platforms that most of you are likely to use), and the
most widespread C implementation, gcc, is not fully conforming


But then gcc has never fully conformed to C90 either, so not much has
changed.


Where does it fail with -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic?

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Nov 14 '05 #28

P: n/a
In message <42***************@yahoo.com>
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kevin Bracey wrote:
But then gcc has never fully conformed to C90 either, so not much has
changed.


Where does it fail with -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic?


Floating point handling is the first thing that springs to mind. All the
rounding behaviour is totally non-conformant, AFAIK. Might be that that only
affects the x86, but it is its most mainstream platform.

--
Kevin Bracey, Principal Software Engineer
Tematic Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1223 503464
182-190 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1728 727430
Cambridge, CB5 8HE, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.tematic.com/
Nov 14 '05 #29

P: n/a

"Kevin Bracey" <ke**********@tematic.com> wrote in message
news:72****************@tematic.com...
In message <42***************@yahoo.com>
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kevin Bracey wrote:
> But then gcc has never fully conformed to C90 either, so not much has
> changed.


Where does it fail with -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic?


Floating point handling is the first thing that springs to mind. All the
rounding behaviour is totally non-conformant, AFAIK. Might be that that
only
affects the x86, but it is its most mainstream platform.

Are you talking about the obsolescent support for x87 float and double?
Where is that disallowed by C90? In gcc for x86-64, you don't even get that
by default. In 32-bit gcc, standard options such
as -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse give you uniform precision. Are you
complaining that it's an option for most C compilers supporting such
processors?
Nov 14 '05 #30

P: n/a

In article <eb**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
In article <d5*********@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik
<mw*****@newsguy.com> writes
In article <HZ**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:

The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.
You keep making this claim, Chris, but I've yet to see any evidence
from you that the implementations which do claim C99 compliance are
not in fact conforming.


OK I stand corrected. C99 compilers are very Rare. How much of the
market do the three below cover?


That's completely beside the point. "There are no conforming
compilers" is wrong. Period.
You do not list any mainstream systems.


Comeau + Dinkumware can be used on various mainstream systems.

And I certainly do in the next section:
Some others that claim conformance:

- IBM C for AIX v6
- Intel C v8, except for FP_CONTRACT, FENV_ACCESS, and
CX_LIMITED_RANGE


And could you please trim irrelevant quoted text when you reply?
(I suppose it's too much to ask for a standard signature separator.)

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

Please enjoy the stereo action fully that will surprise you. -- Pizzicato Five
Nov 14 '05 #31

P: n/a

In article <eo********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use'? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


Fair use does not mandate that the publisher make it convenient to
copy; it only limits what constitutes copyright infringement.

And ANSI does not prevent copying. They disable one rather narrow
copying process (the copy-and-paste function when the document is
displayed by a renderer that respects the disable-copy function).
They can't stop you (programmatically) from retyping by hand and so
forth. Or from extracting the text from the PDF using something
other than Adobe Acrobat Reader.

In my other (semi-) profession, litcrit, I retype sometimes lengthy
quotations by hand all the time, so this whole thing strikes me as a
non-issue, but YMMV.

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

Although he was an outsider, and excluded from their rites, they were
always particularly charming to him at this time; he and his household
received small courtesies and presents, just because he was outside.
-- E M Forster
Nov 14 '05 #32

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
E. Robert Tisdale writes:
[...]
What does "rare" mean?
It appears that you can get a C99 conforming compiler
for just about every platform that C programmers target.
If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
"C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."

I hardly think that they're "ubiquitous".
I know of some platforms
that are not likely *ever* to have a conforming C99 compiler
(though they're not platforms that most of you are likely to use),
and the most widespread C implementation, gcc, is not fully conforming
(for example, variable-length arrays, complex and imaginary support
and inline functions are still marked as "broken", even in gcc 4.0.0).


Please show us an example of how gcc support for variable-length arrays
is "broken".


I have no idea; I'm just going by the statement on their own web page.

--
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 #33

P: n/a
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

[...]
Please show us an example of how gcc support for variable-length arrays
is "broken".


I have no idea; I'm just going by the statement on their own web page.


I just checked the gcc 4.0.0 documentation. It says:

Variable-length automatic arrays are allowed in ISO C99, and as an
extension GCC accepts them in C89 mode and in C++. (However,
GCC's implementation of variable-length arrays does not yet
conform in detail to the ISO C99 standard.)

I didn't see any more details. If you're interested, perhaps you
could do some research yourself.

In any case, the details aren't really the point. The point is that
gcc is not a conforming C99 compiler; VLAs were just one of several
examples of non-conformance from
<http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/c99status.html>. (I only posted a few.)

Do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler? (I know you've
said before that it's close enough for your purposes; that's not
helpful for the rest of us.)

--
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 #34

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:


[...]
Please show us an example of how gcc support for variable-length arrays
is "broken".


I have no idea; I'm just going by the statement on their own web page.

I just checked the gcc 4.0.0 documentation. It says:

Variable-length automatic arrays are allowed in ISO C99, and as an
extension GCC accepts them in C89 mode and in C++. (However,
GCC's implementation of variable-length arrays does not yet
conform in detail to the ISO C99 standard.)

I didn't see any more details. If you're interested, perhaps you
could do some research yourself.

In any case, the details aren't really the point. The point is that
gcc is not a conforming C99 compiler; VLAs were just one of several
examples of non-conformance from
<http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/c99status.html>. (I only posted a few.)

Do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler?
(I know you've said before that it's close enough for your purposes;
that's not helpful for the rest of us.)


How do you know that?
You can't even tell us what's broken.

Your posts seem to imply that complete compliance is important to you.
Can you provide *any* examples to support your point of view.
I submit that the broken C99 features in gcc
are no more important to you than they are to me.

Nov 14 '05 #35

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes: [...] Do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler?
(I know you've said before that it's close enough for your purposes;
that's not helpful for the rest of us.)
How do you know that?
You can't even tell us what's broken.


I see that you haven't bothered to answer my question.

Again, do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler? If so,
you're disagreeing with gcc's own documentation, and I'd say the
burden is on you to provide evidence that you're right and they're
wrong.
Your posts seem to imply that complete compliance is important to you.
Can you provide *any* examples to support your point of view.
I submit that the broken C99 features in gcc
are no more important to you than they are to me.


The point is your own statement upthread:

] If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
] "C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."

If that's accurate, then either gcc is a C99 conforming implementation,
or the existing C99 conforming implementations other than gcc qualify
as "ubiquitous". I don't believe either of those statements is accurate.

An important point here is that gcc is a compiler, not an entire C
implementation. On many systems gcc depends on the native C runtime
library; many such libraries are not C99 conforming.

--
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 #36

P: n/a
On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:13:01 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
la************@ugs.com wrote:
ANSI's distribution method requires you to agree to a (somewhat
ludicrous) license that's more restrictive than copyright law, which is
perfectly legal.


IANAL but I don't think a country /can/ introduce a more restrictive
copyright law than the Hague Convention allows. Or rather, it can
introduce it, but its then in breach of international law. Mind you,
thats a big "so what" round here... :-)

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #37

P: n/a
On 5 May 2005 16:51:28 GMT, in comp.lang.c , mw*****@newsguy.com
(Michael Wojcik) wrote:

In article <eo********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use'? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.
Fair use does not mandate that the publisher make it convenient to
copy; it only limits what constitutes copyright infringement.


true. However if the delivery mechanism rendered fair use impossible,
then that'd be an issue.
And ANSI does not prevent copying. They disable one rather narrow
copying process (the copy-and-paste function when the document is
displayed by a renderer that respects the disable-copy function).
They can't stop you (programmatically) from retyping by hand and so
forth. Or from extracting the text from the PDF using something
other than Adobe Acrobat Reader.


true.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #38

P: n/a

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Chris Croughton wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:06:36 +0100, Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:38:51 +0100, Chris Croughton wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:26:01 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:
Chris Croughton wrote:
>
> One of the standards (I don't remember if
> it's the C or the C++ one) won't even allow copy to clipboard,
> it's in some protected format.

If ANSI sold you a text version *under the exact same
license conditions,* would that make a difference in your
behavior?

"I'll take the Fifth." "Make mine a double!" <g>


Remind me: does the international copyright convention still allow
'fair use' ? If so, ANSI's method of distribution would seem to be
illegal if it prevents copying of small chunks of text.


These days the RIAA and DMCA seem to be not considering "fair use" a
factor, so I guess that if there is an international agreement the US
aren't now part of it. Although since they only prevent you doing it by
a convenient method (copy & paste) they could claim that you have the
same right of "fair use" as if it were a printed version (do it by hand
or take a photocopy or screen-shot), they don't have to make it easy for
you to do it.


Something nobody's mentioned, which actually would be on-topic
/somewhere/ in the comp.* hierarchy, ;-) is that it's not that the
PDF is preventing you from copying bits of it. It's your PDF /reader/
software that's preventing copying. And if you get a free-as-in-speech
PDF reader, then you (presumably; untested but educated guess) won't
have those troubles. That may or may not explain why some people are
claiming their PDFs are copy-protected and others are saying theirs
aren't.

Way, way OT: Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has introduced a bill in the
U.S. House of Representatives trying to restore "fair use" to the DMCA.
(The name of the bill is misleading, IMHO, in order to sneak that goal
past industry lobbyists. I don't know how well that works in practice.)
See Section 5 of http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hr01201:

-Arthur
Nov 14 '05 #39

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
E. Robert Tisdale writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Keith Thompson writes:
[...]
Do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler?
(I know you've said before that it's close enough for your purposes;
that's not helpful for the rest of us.)
How do you know that?
You can't even tell us what's broken.


I see that you haven't bothered to answer my question.

Again, do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler?


I *never* made any such claim.
If so, you're disagreeing with gcc's own documentation
and I'd say the burden is on you
to provide evidence that you're right and they're wrong.
That's a fallacious argument -- a "straw man".

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...nts.html#straw

I don't need to provide evidence
because I never disagreed with "gcc's own documentation".
Your remark is irrelevant.
Your posts seem to imply that complete compliance is important to you.
Can you provide *any* examples to support your point of view.
I submit that the broken C99 features in gcc
are no more important to you than they are to me.


The point is your own statement upthread:

] If you want to be *accurate*, you should say,
] "C99 conforming implementations are ubiquitous."

If that's accurate, then either gcc is a C99 conforming implementation,


I never made any such claim.
or the existing C99 conforming implementations other than gcc qualify
as "ubiquitous". I don't believe either of those statements is accurate.


I never claimed that gcc was conforming because it was "ubiquitous".

According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/

ubiquitous
ADJECTIVE: Being or seeming to be everywhere at the same time;
omnipresent: ...

C99 conforming implementations certainly seem to be everywhere.
What did *you* think that ubiquitous meant?

Keith,

We are weary from your pedantry.
gcc -std=c99 works just fine for me.
I suspect that it works just fine for you too.
If you disagree, please show us just one example
of C90 or C99 conforming code
that you or any other C programmer should care about
that does not compile correctly with gcc -std=c99.

Perhaps some gcc gnuru can contrive an example
which exposes a defect in gcc -std=c99
but it doesn't matter unless some C programmer
actually writes code which relies upon the broken feature.
Your objection to gcc -std=c99
based upon *hypothetical* examples is unreasonable.
Nov 14 '05 #40

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote: [...]
I see that you haven't bothered to answer my question.
Again, do you claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler?


I *never* made any such claim.


Finally, an answer. About half of your response could have been
replace by a simple "no".

Ok, so you don't claim that gcc is a conforming C99 compiler. I
didn't say that you did make such a claim; I asked whether you did.

[snip]
C99 conforming implementations certainly seem to be everywhere.
What did *you* think that ubiquitous meant?
The same thing everyone else thinks it means.

I use a number of systems on which gcc is the only available C compiler.

I use a number of other systems that have gcc and one or more other C
implementations that are not claimed to be conforming.

There may be conforming C99 implementations that are *available* for
those systems. They may be available only for a non-zero monetary
price, and I'm not generally in a position to acquire or install them.
Keith,

We are weary from your pedantry.


"We"? For whom do you speak?

If conforming C99 compilers were "ubiquitous", as you claim, then I
could safely use the C99 standard as a general guide for C
programming, and I could use any features I like and expect the
resulting code to be portable to all platforms I might care about.
I can do that for C90; I can't (yet) do that for C99.

--
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 #41

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
If conforming C99 compilers were "ubiquitous", as you claim,
then I could safely use the C99 standard
as a general guide for C programming
and I could use any features I like
and expect the resulting code to be portable
to all platforms I might care about.
I can do that for C90; I can't (yet) do that for C99.


Why can't you do that for C99 yet?
Can you show us a C code that you care about
that won't compile with gcc -std=c99
or some other C99 compliant implementation
for your target platforms?
If you can't, I must conclude that
you are simply describing an unfounded superstitious belief.

Nov 14 '05 #42

P: n/a
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
If conforming C99 compilers were "ubiquitous", as you claim,
then I could safely use the C99 standard
as a general guide for C programming
and I could use any features I like
and expect the resulting code to be portable
to all platforms I might care about.
I can do that for C90; I can't (yet) do that for C99.


Why can't you do that for C99 yet?
Can you show us a C code that you care about
that won't compile with gcc -std=c99
or some other C99 compliant implementation
for your target platforms?
If you can't, I must conclude that
you are simply describing an unfounded superstitious belief.


% uname -srmp
SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc
% gcc --version | head -1
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0
% cat tmp.c
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void)
{
intmax_t n;
return 0;
}
% gcc tmp.c
tmp.c:1:20: error: stdint.h: No such file or directory
tmp.c: In function 'main':
tmp.c:4: error: 'intmax_t' undeclared (first use in this function)
tmp.c:4: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
tmp.c:4: error: for each function it appears in.)
tmp.c:4: error: parse error before 'n'
% find /usr/include -name '*stdint*'
%

--
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 #43

P: n/a
On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:31:23 GMT, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

Why can't you do that for C99 yet?
Can you show us a C code that you care about
that won't compile with gcc -std=c99
or some other C99 compliant implementation
for your target platforms?
If you can't, I must conclude that
you are simply describing an unfounded superstitious belief.


% uname -srmp
SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc
% gcc --version | head -1
gcc (GCC) 4.0.0
% cat tmp.c
#include <stdint.h>
int main(void)
{
intmax_t n;
return 0;
}
% gcc tmp.c
tmp.c:1:20: error: stdint.h: No such file or directory
tmp.c: In function 'main':
tmp.c:4: error: 'intmax_t' undeclared (first use in this function)
tmp.c:4: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
tmp.c:4: error: for each function it appears in.)
tmp.c:4: error: parse error before 'n'
% find /usr/include -name '*stdint*'
%


Where the library is concerned, printf seems to often be 'broken' as far
as C99 is concerned, often not supporting modifiers ll, j, z and t and
the a,A conversion specifier. A lot of the new functions don't exist in
existing libraries either (snprintf(), lots of floating point stuff...)
and gcc uses the system library.

Installing another compiler or library is often (usually in my
experience) not an option in a commercial environment, the code has to
work with whatever compiler the site or customer uses. On many sites
developers aren't allowed to install other software even for their own
use.

Chris C
Nov 14 '05 #44

P: n/a
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:47:40 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:13:01 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
la************@ugs.com wrote:
ANSI's distribution method requires you to agree to a (somewhat
ludicrous) license that's more restrictive than copyright law, which is
perfectly legal.


IANAL but I don't think a country /can/ introduce a more restrictive
copyright law than the Hague Convention allows. Or rather, it can
introduce it, but its then in breach of international law. Mind you,
thats a big "so what" round here... :-)


I think you mean the Berne convention. It's not an international law,
just an agreement among the countries that signed it. The US is a
signatory.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net
Nov 14 '05 #45

P: n/a

In article <d5**********@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov>, "E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

C99 conforming implementations certainly seem to be everywhere.


Only to a fool.

Name the C99-conforming implementation on the system I am using right
now. I'll give you any number of guesses; since there isn't one, it
doesn't matter how many you try.

One counterexample suffices to demonstrate that they are not, in
fact, everywhere.

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

Most people believe that anything that is true is true for a reason.
These theorems show that some things are true for no reason at all,
i.e., accidentally, or at random. -- G J Chaitin
Nov 14 '05 #46

P: n/a

Keith Thompson wrote:
"E. Robert Tisdale" <E.**************@jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

Keith,

We are weary from your pedantry.


"We"? For whom do you speak?

It's not the royal "we", it's the crazy "we". Trollsdale plus the
voices in his head.


Brian

Nov 14 '05 #47

P: n/a
In article <d5*********@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik
<mw*****@newsguy.com> writes

In article <eb**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
<ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
In article <d5*********@news1.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik
<mw*****@newsguy.com> writes
>In article <HZ**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills
><ch***@phaedsys.org> writes:
>>
>> The problem is that despite 2 TC's to C99 there are no conforming
>> compilers for it. Most are part way between C90 and C99.
>
>You keep making this claim, Chris, but I've yet to see any evidence
>from you that the implementations which do claim C99 compliance are
>not in fact conforming.


OK I stand corrected. C99 compilers are very Rare. How much of the
market do the three below cover?


That's completely beside the point. "There are no conforming
compilers" is wrong. Period.
You do not list any mainstream systems.


Comeau + Dinkumware can be used on various mainstream systems.

How about 8 and 16 bit MCUs? eg the 8051,

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Nov 14 '05 #48

P: n/a
Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> writes:
[...]
I think you mean the Berne convention. It's not an international law,
just an agreement among the countries that signed it. The US is a
signatory.


Which is pretty much what international law is (but IANAIL).

--
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 #49

P: n/a
On Fri, 06 May 2005 09:02:22 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Alan Balmer
<al******@att.net> wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:47:40 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 05 May 2005 04:13:01 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
la************@ugs.com wrote:
ANSI's distribution method requires you to agree to a (somewhat
ludicrous) license that's more restrictive than copyright law, which is
perfectly legal.
IANAL but I don't think a country /can/ introduce a more restrictive
copyright law than the Hague Convention allows. Or rather, it can
introduce it, but its then in breach of international law. Mind you,
thats a big "so what" round here... :-)


I think you mean the Berne convention.


you're absolutely right, no idea why I put hague...
It's not an international law,
just an agreement among the countries that signed it. The US is a
signatory.


whats an international convention if not international law...

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #50

66 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.