By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,116 Members | 1,244 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,116 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The C Programming Language: Third Edition

P: n/a
I've been reading here frequently, and I'm finally posting.
Can anybody recommend a textbook to replace K&R2?
It should explain all of the new C99 features.

Jun 30 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
55 Replies


P: n/a
pd*******@gmail.com said:
I've been reading here frequently, and I'm finally posting.
Can anybody recommend a textbook to replace K&R2?
Alas, no. Whilst certainly not a perfect book, it is very, very good indeed,
and is unquestionably the best C tutorial/reference book available.
It should explain all of the new C99 features.


Why? :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jun 30 '06 #2

P: n/a
pd*******@gmail.com writes:
I've been reading here frequently, and I'm finally posting.
Can anybody recommend a textbook to replace K&R2?
It should explain all of the new C99 features.


I know of no tutorial comparable to K&R2 that covers C99.

H&S5 is a very good reference that does cover C99. If you already
understand C90 from K&R2, a reference is probably sufficient for the
additional features of C99.

H&S5 is Harbison & Steele's _C: A Reference Manual_, 5th Edition.

--
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.
Jul 1 '06 #3

P: n/a
pd*******@gmail.com wrote:
I've been reading here frequently, and I'm finally posting.
Can anybody recommend a textbook to replace K&R2?
It should explain all of the new C99 features.


"C In A Nutshell" by O'Reilly covers C99. I haven't read through the
book but I do own it and the parts that I have read have been, for the
most part, presented very well and accurately. The text is
comprehensive and the author does a good job of pointing out features
and functions new to C99 as well as instances where the behavior is
technically implementation defined or undefined. It's not perfect but
it is a heck of a lot better than most books out there and I would
recommend it. Of course you can't go wrong with H&S for a reference
either.

Robert Gamble

Jul 1 '06 #4

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
pd*******@gmail.com said:

I've been reading here frequently, and I'm finally posting.
Can anybody recommend a textbook to replace K&R2?

Alas, no. Whilst certainly not a perfect book, it is very, very good indeed,
and is unquestionably the best C tutorial/reference book available.

It should explain all of the new C99 features.

Why? :-)


Because it is the standard Heathfield
Jul 1 '06 #5

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
pd*******@gmail.com said: <snip>
It should explain all of the new C99 features.

Why? :-)


Because it is the standard Heathfield


There isn't a standard Heathfield. We have a wide variety of Heathfields -
Imperial Heathfields, metric Heathfields, Jedi Heathfields and even a
quilting Heathfield - and no standard has yet emerged. There is some talk
amongst interested parties of having a chat with ISO, but frankly we doubt
if it will come to anything.

As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If you need
portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why bother with
/any/ Standard?

You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is using
a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and guarantee
that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I *still* cannot
even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.

Wake me up when GNU and Microsoft have conforming C99 compilers and
libraries - because until that happens, C99 is a pipe-dream. If it ever
does happen, that won't mean the work is over, but at least it will be a
strong marketplace indication that C99 is considered commercially viable.
Until then, we might as well ignore C99 - and C0X is a spectactular
exercise in futility.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 1 '06 #6

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield a écrit :
pd*******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
It should explain all of the new C99 features.
Why? :-)

Because it is the standard Heathfield

There isn't a standard Heathfield. We have a wide variety of Heathfields -
Imperial Heathfields, metric Heathfields, Jedi Heathfields and even a
quilting Heathfield - and no standard has yet emerged. There is some talk
amongst interested parties of having a chat with ISO, but frankly we doubt
if it will come to anything.


And we have you Heathfield, helas
As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If you need
portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why bother with
/any/ Standard?

OK you are against C99, it is your right, but please don't speak about
"Standard C" then, as you often do. Just say you are against standards
and let it at that!
You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is using
a fully conforming C99 compiler or library.
Intel has a compliant compiler, gcc has an almost pefect implementation,
Comeau has a 100% implementation, Sun, etc.

Well, it is true that you said: "almost nobody".
I *still* cannot take advantage of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and guarantee
that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I *still* cannot
even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.

Bad for you Heathfield. You better suicide then.

Wake me up when GNU and Microsoft have conforming C99 compilers and
libraries - because until that happens, C99 is a pipe-dream.

gcc -std=c99 is (to negligable details) a standard implemnetation.
But go to sleep. You can count on me to "wake you up" :-)

If it ever does happen, that won't mean the work is over, but at least it will be a
strong marketplace indication that C99 is considered commercially viable.
Until then, we might as well ignore C99 - and C0X is a spectactular
exercise in futility.

Down with standards then, let's adopt the "Heathfield" standard that
is...

People that like to use the aptly named "pedantic" options of some
compilers.
Jul 1 '06 #7

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit : <snip>
As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If you
need portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why bother
with /any/ Standard?

OK you are against C99,


No, I am *not* against C99. What I'm against is non-portability. When C99
becomes as portable as C90 is now, I'll be perfectly happy to take
advantage of C99 features. But it's not there yet.
it is your right, but please don't speak about
"Standard C" then, as you often do. Just say you are against standards
and let it at that!
But I am not against standards. I am against an /absence/ of standards. And
C99 is an absence of standard, as far as real world portable programming is
concerned.
You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is
using a fully conforming C99 compiler or library.
Intel has a compliant compiler, gcc has an almost pefect implementation,


But gcc's implementation is, by their own admission, far from perfect. And
whilst I'm sure Intel has a reasonable user base, it's not exactly the most
widely-used compiler under the sun.
Comeau has a 100% implementation, Sun, etc.

Well, it is true that you said: "almost nobody".
gcc isn't there yet, and it seems it never will be. Microsoft isn't there.
Borland isn't there. Without them, C99 is a pipe-dream.
I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and guarantee
that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I *still* cannot
even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.
Bad for you Heathfield. You better suicide then.


Did you have a /rational/ point to make about the lack of C99 portability?
Wake me up when GNU and Microsoft have conforming C99 compilers and
libraries - because until that happens, C99 is a pipe-dream.


gcc -std=c99 is (to negligable details) a standard implemnetation.


Not according to their docs.
If it ever
does happen, that won't mean the work is over, but at least it will be a
strong marketplace indication that C99 is considered commercially viable.
Until then, we might as well ignore C99 - and C0X is a spectactular
exercise in futility.
Down with standards then,


You think so? Wouldn't it be better to get Microsoft and Borland and gcc on
board the C99 boat? And let's not forget the big iron (C/370, LE 370, etc).
let's adopt the "Heathfield" standard that is...
No, let's get C99 in place in the real world. In the meantime, we have C90.

People that like to use the aptly named "pedantic" options of some
compilers.


Yes, in comp.lang.c the word "pedantic" is used to describe those who care
about accuracy, by those who don't.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 1 '06 #8

P: n/a
jacob navia posted:
<snip garbage>

Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on Usenet?
--

Frederick Gotham
Jul 1 '06 #9

P: n/a
Frederick Gotham a écrit :
jacob navia posted:

<snip garbage>


Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on Usenet?


Yes, I wonder why...

Care to let us know?

You miss your mother care?

Didn't have breast feeding ?
Jul 1 '06 #10

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
Richard Heathfield a écrit : [...]
As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If
you need portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why
bother with /any/ Standard?


OK you are against C99, it is your right, but please don't speak about
"Standard C" then, as you often do. Just say you are against standards
and let it at that!


C90 is still a de facto standard, and code that conforms to C90 while
avoiding conflicts with C99 is remarkably portable. That's what
standards are for.

(Richard has already refuted your claim that he's "against C99".)
Intel has a compliant compiler, gcc has an almost pefect
implementation, Comeau has a 100% implementation, Sun, etc.
Do you know more about gcc's C99 status than the gcc implementers
themselves do? The URL <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html> has been
posted here dozens of times; have you read it?

I'd like to use some of the C99 features. If I do so, my code will
not be portable. I wish that weren't the case, but it is, and there's
no a whole lot I can do about it myself.
I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and
guarantee that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I
*still* cannot even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.


Bad for you Heathfield. You better suicide then.


WHAT????

Jacob, think carefully about what you're doing. You are becoming a
troll, just as bad as certain others whose names I won't mention.
Unlike them, you have some valuable contributions to make both here
and in comp.std.c, but if you continue this kind of inexcusably rude
behavior you're going to end up in a lot of killfiles. Stick to
technical discussions and keep the personal insults to yourself.

You owe Richard an apology, and you owe all of us a different
attitude.

--
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.
Jul 1 '06 #11

P: n/a
In article <6a*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>jacob navia posted:
><snip garbage>


Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on Usenet?
It looks like your newsreader/poster (+) has a bug that caused you to
respond to the wrong post (probably some kind of "off by one" error).

ITYM:

* Richard Heathfield posted:

* <snip garbage>

* Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on Usenet?

(No thanks are necessary. Just doing my job)

(+) Just out of curiosity, what newsreading software/platform are you
using?

Jul 1 '06 #12

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack posted:

>>Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on
Usenet?

It looks like your newsreader/poster (+) has a bug that caused you to
respond to the wrong post (probably some kind of "off by one" error).

Thank you, Kenny McCormack, but you're mistaken.

I also view *you* as a mentally retarded person, and, while I have no
desire to offend you or any other mentally retarded person based upon their
condition, I don't want to talk to you.

ITYM:

* Richard Heathfield posted:

No. Actually, I would regard Richard Heathfield as one of the more
productive contributors to the group.

(No thanks are necessary. Just doing my job)

The human condition. Ever hear of it?

It's the reason why you are posting here.

It's unfortunate that your past experiences in life have led you to such a
shameful existence at this moment and time, but you have my every hope that
one day you will surpass yourself.
--

Frederick Gotham
Jul 2 '06 #13

P: n/a
Frederick Gotham wrote:
Kenny McCormack posted:
>>>Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on
Usenet?

It looks like your newsreader/poster (+) has a bug that caused you to
respond to the wrong post (probably some kind of "off by one" error).

Thank you, Kenny McCormack, but you're mistaken.

I also view *you* as a mentally retarded person, and, while I have no
desire to offend you or any other mentally retarded person based upon their
condition, I don't want to talk to you.
Such comments are neither appropriate or welcome on a technical news
group. You are taking a short cut to the land of the trolls.

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 2 '06 #14

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
As for the C99 Standard, we all know it's toothless - don't we? If you need
portability, C99 is Not Good Enough. And if you don't, why bother with
/any/ Standard?

You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is using
a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and guarantee
that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I *still* cannot
even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.
As I wrote in another article:

* GCC / Linux has much of C99 implemented, and is gradually improving.
* Sun Studio / Solaris 10 has C99 support.
* IBM VisualAge / AIX 5.3 has C99 support.
* HP compiler / HPUX 11 has C99 support.
* Portland Group / Win32/64 has C99 support.
* Comeau compiler / Dinkum C99 libs have C99 support.
* Intel C compiler has smatterings of C99.

This is not "almost nobody", by any stretch. If snprintf is not built
in to your favorite system, use one of the freely available
implementations. Include a feature test in your build infrastructure.
Wake me up when GNU and Microsoft have conforming C99 compilers and
libraries - because until that happens, C99 is a pipe-dream. If it ever
does happen, that won't mean the work is over, but at least it will be a
strong marketplace indication that C99 is considered commercially viable.
<snip>

Complete rubbish. It has __already happened__ for people willing to
pay for it. Sun, IBM, HP, Portland, Comeau, and Dinkum are not doing
the hard work for altruistic purposes, but for commercial ones.

As usual, GCC will be ready when it's ready. Give it a few more years.
Mark F. Haigh
mf*****@sbcglobal.net

Jul 2 '06 #15

P: n/a
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
Kenny McCormack posted:
[snip]
Thank you, Kenny McCormack, but you're mistaken.
*Please* don't feed the troll.

--
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.
Jul 2 '06 #16

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrites:
>Kenny McCormack posted:
[snip]
>Thank you, Kenny McCormack, but you're mistaken.

*Please* don't feed the troll.
I don't think of Frederick as a troll (he's not good enough).

Jul 2 '06 #17

P: n/a
Keith Thompson a écrit :
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
>>Richard Heathfield a écrit :

>>I *still* cannot take advantage
>>>of any single C99 feature (unless it is also a C90 feature) and
guarantee that my program will be as portable as I need it to be. I
*still* cannot even use snprintf, let alone compound literals.

Bad for you Heathfield. You better suicide then.


WHAT????

Jacob, think carefully about what you're doing. You are becoming a
troll, just as bad as certain others whose names I won't mention.
Unlike them, you have some valuable contributions to make both here
and in comp.std.c, but if you continue this kind of inexcusably rude
behavior you're going to end up in a lot of killfiles. Stick to
technical discussions and keep the personal insults to yourself.

You owe Richard an apology, and you owe all of us a different
attitude.
Look, I am fed up with that guy.

I have spent several years implementing C99, and I see this people that
do nothing but spread lies and lies:

"C99 is inexistent", "almost no one implements it", etc etc.

In the list of C99 implementations I sent there wasn't even a hint
of lcc-win32.

So, that can't be the reason for spreading all those lies.

I am FED UP with people that want to return to 1989, or even
better, to the PDP 11.

And later see the SAME PEOPLE with the mouth full of

"STANDARD C", ONLY STANDARD C IS ON TOPIC HERE and all that
RUBBISH!

Yes, "STANDARD C" means whatever I want it to mean but not
what actually means: the current C standard as adopted by
the ANSI/ISO comitee.

As you yourself could notice, I am not a fan of the C commitee
and I have had strong disagreement with them, as the latest discussion
about the gets() function demonstrated.

But I do care about standards, and when I mean standards I mean
the actual standards as specified by the ISO comitee, not whatever
happens to be in my mind!
Jul 2 '06 #18

P: n/a
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:56:18 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Frederick Gotham
<fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>jacob navia posted:
><snip garbage>


Why do so many people portray themselves as mentally retarded on Usenet?
Its a mystery. In this case however its probably because Jacob is a
semi-troll who often takes the opportunity to attack the regulars, as
he is often offended by being asked to stop postingt offtopic garbage
here.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 2 '06 #19

P: n/a
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:33:00 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>I'd like to use some of the C99 features. If I do so, my code will
not be portable.
This isn't entirely true though - it will be portable, but not
maximally portable. Plenty of implemnentations exist which implement
*some* c99 features.
>I *still* cannot take advantage
>>of any single C99 feature
Hard though it is for me to disagree with Richard /this/ is actually
untrue. I've yet to meet a C compiler younger than my son that
didn't accept // comments.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 2 '06 #20

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:33:00 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>I'd like to use some of the C99 features. If I do so, my code will
not be portable.

This isn't entirely true though - it will be portable, but not
maximally portable. Plenty of implemnentations exist which implement
*some* c99 features.
What's the difference between "portable" and "maximally portable"?

If I write code that assumes long is exactly 32 bits, for expamle, it
will be "portable", but only to implementations on which that
assumption is true. That's not what I call "portable".
>>I *still* cannot take advantage
of any single C99 feature

Hard though it is for me to disagree with Richard /this/ is actually
untrue. I've yet to meet a C compiler younger than my son that
didn't accept // comments.
Richard uses gcc with options that enforce C90 compliance. With those
options, it rejects // comments. Without those options, it fails to
catch certain errors that he's very interested in catching.

If there were an option to accept // comments without disabling any
other diagnostics, you'd have a better point.

--
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.
Jul 2 '06 #21

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre said:

<snip>
>
I've yet to meet a C compiler younger than my son that
didn't accept // comments.
Well, I don't know how old your son is, but I do know that the C compiler
that I habitually use, the binary of which is dated 23 March 2002,
correctly rejects // "comments" when invoked in conforming mode.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 2 '06 #22

P: n/a
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:12:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>What's the difference between "portable" and "maximally portable"?
Rhetorical (or disingenuous) question, therefore not answered.
>If I write code that assumes long is exactly 32 bits, for expamle, it
will be "portable", but only to implementations on which that
assumption is true. That's not what I call "portable".
I agree although one can prove virtually anything with pathological
examples. I could equally note that printf or rand aren't portable.
>Hard though it is for me to disagree with Richard /this/ is actually
untrue. I've yet to meet a C compiler younger than my son that
didn't accept // comments.

Richard uses gcc
I assume you're a mind-reader.
>with options that enforce C90 compliance. With those
options, it rejects // comments.
Run that by me again: in C90 mode this compiler doesn't conform to
C99?
>Without those options, it fails to
catch certain errors that he's very interested in catching.
Again, you're a mind reader.
>If there were an option to accept // comments without disabling any
other diagnostics, you'd have a better point.
You'd have had one if there were actually any sense to these remarks.
Sorry, but you're being silly - you suggest the compiler be invoked in
C90 mode, and then say that it doesn't conform to C99. Come now.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 2 '06 #23

P: n/a
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:13:47 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Well, I don't know how old your son is,
Ten.
>but I do know that the C compiler
that I habitually use, the binary of which is dated 23 March 2002,
About the age of my youngest son.
>correctly rejects // "comments" when invoked in conforming mode.
Well *obviously* it rejects them in conforming #C90# mode. What would
you have it do? Lets not be silly.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 2 '06 #24

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:13:47 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>>Well, I don't know how old your son is,


Ten.

>>but I do know that the C compiler
that I habitually use, the binary of which is dated 23 March 2002,


About the age of my youngest son.

>>correctly rejects // "comments" when invoked in conforming mode.


Well *obviously* it rejects them in conforming #C90# mode. What would
you have it do? Lets not be silly.
<OT>
At risk of pouring oil on the flames, a lot of compatibility issues stem
form the default setting for gcc being 'compile it if it looks vaguely
like C', where other compiler's defaults are closer to ANSI.

Which gives us the silly situation where the only way to get gcc to warn
about stuff that would upset another compiler in default mode, one has
to turn the warning levels up to maxi. Which is something very few
people (this group excluded) bother to do.

Spoken as one who has had to port too much code from gcc.
</OT>

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 2 '06 #25

P: n/a
In article <gi********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:12:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>What's the difference between "portable" and "maximally portable"?

Rhetorical (or disingenuous) question, therefore not answered.
(rest of more of the same - the great MarkMc disagreeing [in sarcastic,
bitter tones] with the great Keith Thompson - snipped. Oh my!)

Or, more poetically:

Uh, oh. Cat fight!!!

Jul 3 '06 #26

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre said:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:12:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
<snip>
>>
Richard uses gcc

I assume you're a mind-reader.
No, he just has a good memory. I have made it clear in the past that, for
everyday use, I favour gcc. And naturally I invoke it in conforming mode
(bearing in mind that this is C90 conformance, since the version I use
doesn't have a C99 conforming mode - and indeed I am unaware of any
C99-conforming gcc implementation).

>>with options that enforce C90 compliance. With those
options, it rejects // comments.

Run that by me again: in C90 mode this compiler doesn't conform to
C99?
Right. In C90, // this is a syntax error.

>>Without those options, it fails to
catch certain errors that he's very interested in catching.

Again, you're a mind reader.
No, again he simply has a good memory.
>>If there were an option to accept // comments without disabling any
other diagnostics, you'd have a better point.

You'd have had one if there were actually any sense to these remarks.
Sorry, but you're being silly - you suggest the compiler be invoked in
C90 mode,
No, he's not suggesting any such thing; he is merely reporting what actually
happens.
and then say that it doesn't conform to C99. Come now.
Mark, he's /right/. Please don't call him silly for being right. I invoke
the compiler in C90 conforming mode for portability reasons. Note that, on
the implementation I use, there *isn't* a C99-conforming mode.

And programs that take advantage of C99 features are very likely to break
when compiled by a C90 implementation.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #27

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre said:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:13:47 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>>Well, I don't know how old your son is,

Ten.
>>but I do know that the C compiler
that I habitually use, the binary of which is dated 23 March 2002,

About the age of my youngest son.
>>correctly rejects // "comments" when invoked in conforming mode.

Well *obviously* it rejects them in conforming #C90# mode.
Right. But it's the only ISO-conforming mode that implementation has, and
I'm not about to drop conformance checking just so that I can have borken
one-line comments.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #28

P: n/a
Mark F. Haigh said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
>You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is
using a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. [...]

As I wrote in another article:

* GCC / Linux has much of C99 implemented, and is gradually improving.
* Sun Studio / Solaris 10 has C99 support.
* IBM VisualAge / AIX 5.3 has C99 support.
* HP compiler / HPUX 11 has C99 support.
* Portland Group / Win32/64 has C99 support.
* Comeau compiler / Dinkum C99 libs have C99 support.
* Intel C compiler has smatterings of C99.

This is not "almost nobody", by any stretch.
Um, yes it is, once we realise that:

(a) my "almost nobody" refers to customers, not vendors. Note that I said
"almost nobody is /using/ a fully conforming C99 compiler or library". I
have every respect for Greg Comeau, for example, but I am sure he'd be the
first to agree that his user base is the tiniest fraction of Microsoft's.

(b) "much of" and "smatterings" don't count. Full conformance is what
matters where portability is concerned.

(c) gcc is not gradually improving C99 performance. It made huge inroads,
hit some showstopper obstacles, and stopped the show. No progress for
years, as far as I can tell.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #29

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark F. Haigh said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is
using a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. [...]
As I wrote in another article:

* GCC / Linux has much of C99 implemented, and is gradually improving.
* Sun Studio / Solaris 10 has C99 support.
* IBM VisualAge / AIX 5.3 has C99 support.
* HP compiler / HPUX 11 has C99 support.
* Portland Group / Win32/64 has C99 support.
* Comeau compiler / Dinkum C99 libs have C99 support.
* Intel C compiler has smatterings of C99.

This is not "almost nobody", by any stretch.

Um, yes it is, once we realise that:
<snip>

You said "almost nobody is using a fully conforming C99 compiler or
library". In my opinion, __just__ the intersection of people using
Sun, IBM, and HP's latest, fully C99-conformant offerrings is far above
"almost nobody".

I suppose we can agree to disagree. You've turned into quite the
anti-C99 spokesman recently.
Mark F. Haigh
mf*****@sbcglobal.net

Jul 3 '06 #30

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@75g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>, Mark
F. Haigh <mf*****@sbcglobal.netwrites
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Mark F. Haigh said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
>You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is
using a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. [...]

As I wrote in another article:

* GCC / Linux has much of C99 implemented, and is gradually improving.
* Sun Studio / Solaris 10 has C99 support.
* IBM VisualAge / AIX 5.3 has C99 support.
* HP compiler / HPUX 11 has C99 support.
* Portland Group / Win32/64 has C99 support.
* Comeau compiler / Dinkum C99 libs have C99 support.
* Intel C compiler has smatterings of C99.

This is not "almost nobody", by any stretch.

Um, yes it is, once we realise that:
<snip>

You said "almost nobody is using a fully conforming C99 compiler or
library". In my opinion, __just__ the intersection of people using
Sun, IBM, and HP's latest, fully C99-conformant offerrings is far above
"almost nobody".

I suppose we can agree to disagree. You've turned into quite the
anti-C99 spokesman recently.
GCC is NOT C99 compliant, neither is Intel C.... like many they are
"working towards"

The Unix compilers do have C99 support, largely I believe, for political
reasons not technical reasons. Having C99 support and using it are two
different things.

We are seven years down the line from C99 and a lot of the compiler
companies had sight of the new standard before publication. Certainly
the FCD that went out for review.

You actually missed out that a LOT of C compilers are potentially C99
compliant as they use the EDG front end and the Dimkumware libraries
which are both fully C99.

HOWEVER the compiler writers choose not to fully implement C99 in the
compiler. No demand to do so from the market.

There has been no rush to implement C99 you have listed 7 compilers that
are C99 compliant out of how many C compilers are there out there?

The number of people actually using C99 compared to those who use C95 is
small. The Unix C99 compilers have only been announced recently (within
the last year?) and no one jumps standards in the middle of a project.
In practical terms those actually using C99 on a fully C99 compiler is
probably "almost nobody".


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

Jul 3 '06 #31

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <11**********************@75g2000cwc.googlegroups. com>, Mark
F. Haigh <mf*****@sbcglobal.netwrites
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Mark F. Haigh said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
You've had six and a half years, people - and *still* almost nobody is
using a fully conforming C99 compiler or library. [...]

As I wrote in another article:

* GCC / Linux has much of C99 implemented, and is gradually improving.
* Sun Studio / Solaris 10 has C99 support.
* IBM VisualAge / AIX 5.3 has C99 support.
* HP compiler / HPUX 11 has C99 support.
* Portland Group / Win32/64 has C99 support.
* Comeau compiler / Dinkum C99 libs have C99 support.
* Intel C compiler has smatterings of C99.

This is not "almost nobody", by any stretch.

Um, yes it is, once we realise that:
<snip>

You said "almost nobody is using a fully conforming C99 compiler or
library". In my opinion, __just__ the intersection of people using
Sun, IBM, and HP's latest, fully C99-conformant offerrings is far above
"almost nobody".

I suppose we can agree to disagree. You've turned into quite the
anti-C99 spokesman recently.

GCC is NOT C99 compliant, neither is Intel C.... like many they are
"working towards"
Correct, as I take care to note above. GCC does, however, have a
substantial amount of C99 implemented.
The Unix compilers do have C99 support, largely I believe, for political
reasons not technical reasons. Having C99 support and using it are two
different things.
The support is there because somebody wanted it and somebody spent the
time to implement it. Having the support and using it are two
different things, but you need to have it before you can use it, don't
you think?
We are seven years down the line from C99 and a lot of the compiler
companies had sight of the new standard before publication. Certainly
the FCD that went out for review.

You actually missed out that a LOT of C compilers are potentially C99
compliant as they use the EDG front end and the Dimkumware libraries
which are both fully C99.
I'm aware of that.
>
HOWEVER the compiler writers choose not to fully implement C99 in the
compiler. No demand to do so from the market.

There has been no rush to implement C99 you have listed 7 compilers that
are C99 compliant out of how many C compilers are there out there?

The number of people actually using C99 compared to those who use C95 is
small. The Unix C99 compilers have only been announced recently (within
the last year?) and no one jumps standards in the middle of a project.
In practical terms those actually using C99 on a fully C99 compiler is
probably "almost nobody".
But the proportion of those using some of C99 on a C99-ish compiler /
library is certainly not "almost nobody".

Also, a non-"almost nobody" segment of the developer population have
access to conforming C99 implementations, on a variety of common and
important platforms. Time will tell which C99 features are used the
most, but it's starting to show up in earnest right about now.

Mark F. Haigh
mf*****@sbcglobal.net

Jul 3 '06 #32

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:12:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>What's the difference between "portable" and "maximally portable"?

Rhetorical (or disingenuous) question, therefore not answered.
It was neither rhetorical nor disingenuous.

There are degrees of portability. If I refer to something as
"portable", without qualification, I probably mean what you refer to
as "maximally portable". I don't know what distinction you're trying
to make.

Code written in conforming C90 and avoiding any conflicting C99
features (e.g., that avoids using "restrict" or "inline" as
identifiers) is what I'd call "maximally portable", or very close to
it.

[...]
>>Richard uses gcc

I assume you're a mind-reader.
Richard addressed this elsethread.
>>with options that enforce C90 compliance. With those
options, it rejects // comments.

Run that by me again: in C90 mode this compiler doesn't conform to
C99?
Um, yes. Do you have a problem with that statement?

[...]
>>If there were an option to accept // comments without disabling any
other diagnostics, you'd have a better point.

You'd have had one if there were actually any sense to these remarks.
Sorry, but you're being silly - you suggest the compiler be invoked in
C90 mode, and then say that it doesn't conform to C99. Come now.
If Richard wants to write conforming C90 code, he can specify a
certain set of options to gcc; gcc will then issue diagnostics for any
code that doesn't conform to C90. (Or close enough; there's always
the possibility of bugs, but gcc seems to be reasonably solid in this
area.) The resulting code, if gcc accepts it, is very likely to be
portable to any other conforming C90 implementation.

If he wants to write conforming C99 code using the full language, he
can't do it, since gcc doesn't support the full C99 language. He can
write code in the subset of C99 that gcc supports, but such code won't
be portable, since other compilers may support different subsets of
C99; if his code depends on a certain C99 feature that gcc happens to
support, it might break on another compiler that doesn't happen to
support that particular feature (even if it supports a number of other
C99 features).

You say that virtually all C compilers support "//" comments. That
may be true, but gcc doesn't provide a set of options to accept code
written a dialect consisting of just C90 plus "//" comments. You can
tell gcc to accept "//" comments, but only by telling to accept either
the GNU C dialect or the C99 subset that gcc supports. Either option
disables some conformance checks that are necessary if you're going to
write maximally portable code.

--
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.
Jul 3 '06 #33

P: n/a
Mark F. Haigh said:

<snip>
You've turned into quite the anti-C99 spokesman recently.
Yes, I suppose I have - and yet I am *not* anti-C99. I'm just
anti-portability. When C99 becomes as widespread as C90 is now,
I shall be as delighted as anyone else, believe me.

But it isn't there yet.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #34

P: n/a
In article <KN********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Mark F. Haigh said:

<snip>
>You've turned into quite the anti-C99 spokesman recently.

Yes, I suppose I have - and yet I am *not* anti-C99. I'm just
anti-portability.
Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?

Jul 3 '06 #35

P: n/a
In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?
I didn't realize this group had a charter. Can you provide a pointer,
please?
Jul 3 '06 #36

P: n/a
Rudolf wrote:
In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?

I didn't realize this group had a charter. Can you provide a pointer, please?
There's no formal charter, but a de-facto one is advocated by the
"regulars". The following is as good a document as any for this
subject:

<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_community:comp.lang.c:Introduction>

Jul 3 '06 #37

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack said:
In article <KN********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>>Mark F. Haigh said:

<snip>
>>You've turned into quite the anti-C99 spokesman recently.

Yes, I suppose I have - and yet I am *not* anti-C99. I'm just
anti-portability.

Then why are you posting here?
LOL - well spotted. Of course I meant to say anti-nonportability.
Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?
What charter? Yes, I've read the FAQ.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #38

P: n/a
<posted & mailed>

Rudolf said:
In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?

I didn't realize this group had a charter.
It doesn't.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #39

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites
>Rudolf wrote:
>In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?

I didn't realize this group had a charter. Can you provide a pointer, please?

There's no formal charter, but a de-facto one is advocated by the
"regulars".
Bollox!

ADVOCATED BY *SOME* of the regulars. Regulars who chase off any newbie
they don't like.

There are several opposing views on what is On Topic here.
>The following is as good a document as any for this
subject:
No it's not. It is written with a particular veiw point and some
regulars would disagree with parts.

It has no more or less standing than any one else's view on what this NG
is about. It is certainly no replacement for a charter.

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

Jul 3 '06 #40

P: n/a
In article <DK********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
><posted & mailed>

Rudolf said:
>In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>>Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?

I didn't realize this group had a charter.

It doesn't.
I wonder what import you attach to that statement? I.e., why is it
important to assert it?

Anyway, regardless of what you call it, there is a document floating
around, cited often here, that basically says what is and isn't allowed
here. Whether or not it is officially sanctified as a "charter" is not
really relevant. My point is that the concept certainly exists.

Jul 3 '06 #41

P: n/a
In article <1D**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
....
>No it's not. It is written with a particular veiw point and some
regulars would disagree with parts.
If 100% agreement were necessary for a "charter" to exist, there would
be no "charters". Anyway, as I mention elsewhere, whether or not you
choose to sanctify it with that label, it's still (effectively) a charter.
>It has no more or less standing than any one else's view on what this NG
is about. It is certainly no replacement for a charter.
You certainly can't deny that there is a strong, religious POV that has
been allowed to become dominant here.

Jul 3 '06 #42

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack (in e8**********@news.xmission.com) said:

| In article <DK********************@bt.com>,
| Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
|| <posted & mailed>
||
|| Rudolf said:
||
||| In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
||| ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
|||
|||| Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?
|||
||| I didn't realize this group had a charter.
||
|| It doesn't.
|
| I wonder what import you attach to that statement? I.e., why is it
| important to assert it?
|
| Anyway, regardless of what you call it, there is a document floating
| around, cited often here, that basically says what is and isn't
| allowed here. Whether or not it is officially sanctified as a
| "charter" is not really relevant. My point is that the concept
| certainly exists.

The concept exists; but the document does not exist and never has.
Control of what's allowed, as much as that ever could actually be
controlled, is in the hands of the participants - and the amount of
influence that any one participant can exert varies according to other
participants estimation of that participant's knowledge, expertise,
and constructive attitude.

The whole lash-up is informal, hierarchical, and very real. The more
esteem one has earned, the more influence one can exert and the more
topical latitude is allowed by the group as a whole.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Jul 3 '06 #43

P: n/a
Kenny McCormack said:
In article <DK********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>><posted & mailed>

Rudolf said:
>>In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?
I didn't realize this group had a charter.

It doesn't.

I wonder what import you attach to that statement?
The same de facto import that I attach to any true statement.
I.e., why is it important to assert it?
Why is it important to question how important it is to assert it? (And loop
until bored.)

Anyway, regardless of what you call it, there is a document floating
around, cited often here, that basically says what is and isn't allowed
here.
Really? I've been subscribing to clc since 1998, and I've never seen such a
document.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #44

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In article <11**********************@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites
[...]
>>There's no formal charter, but a de-facto one is advocated by the
"regulars".

Bollox!

ADVOCATED BY *SOME* of the regulars. Regulars who chase off any newbie
they don't like.

There are several opposing views on what is On Topic here.
There are a few trolls (I emphatically do not include you in that
group) who don't care about any topicality guidelines, and probably
would continue not to care if they were changed.

There are a few more rational posters (including you) who believe that
the current widely accepted set of topicality guidelines should be
changed. But you, in particular, have not presented any specific
suggestions for what changes should be made. If you can come up with
a coherent proposal, perhaps something like a proposed charter, I'm
sure most of us would be willing to discuss it. Until then, what
we've got is what we've got.

We have something very much like a charter now, because a group of
regulars have made the effort to write it. (I didn't participate in
this myself.) If you want it changed, the ball is in your court.

--
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.
Jul 3 '06 #45

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <11**********************@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
santosh <sa*********@gmail.comwrites
Rudolf wrote:
In article <e8**********@news.xmission.com>,
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

Then why are you posting here? Haven't you read the charter/FAQ?


I didn't realize this group had a charter. Can you provide a pointer, please?
There's no formal charter, but a de-facto one is advocated by the
"regulars".

Bollox!

ADVOCATED BY *SOME* of the regulars. Regulars who chase off any newbie
they don't like.
You're right. I should have said "some of the regulars".
There are several opposing views on what is On Topic here.
Yes.
The following is as good a document as any for this
subject:

No it's not. It is written with a particular veiw point and some
regulars would disagree with parts.
Then instead of answering to sporadic debates over the same issue, why
not create another wiki to represent the more "liberal" regulars, say
wiki.clc.liberated?
It has no more or less standing than any one else's view on what this NG
is about. It is certainly no replacement for a charter.
Since there is no formal charter and since "Rudolf" did ask for
pointers, this is the best I could come up with. I should've probably
been more precise with my wording.

As you say, this group is unmoderated so no one can actually enforce
anything and if some contributors feel the attitude of the "regulars"
is too restrictive, they're always free to try and change that by
encouraging the opposite.

Personally though, I feel that we should draw the line somewhere. C is
a very widely implemented language and if all remotely C related posts
were allowed, the group might just turn into a mess and spammer's
paradise. But it's just _my_ opinion of course.

But the line for topicality has to be drawn somewhere and, IMHO, the
boundaries of the C standard is a good place. If not, an arbitrary
decision would be confusing and even more controversial. What should be
deemed topical? C as it's implemented on PCs, or embedded C, or
mainframe implementations or all or any two of them? Or should _all_ C
related questions be allowed, like the recent "Power Builder to C#
porting" query?

food for thought...

Jul 3 '06 #46

P: n/a
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
We have something very much like a charter now,
We do? When did that happen?
because a group of regulars have made the effort to write it.
When was it agreed that clc needed a charter? Who wrote it, specifically?
When was it voted on?
(I didn't participate in this myself.)
Who did?
If you want it changed, the ball is in your court.
Why would we need to change a non-normative document?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Jul 3 '06 #47

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
>We have something very much like a charter now,

We do? When did that happen?
>because a group of regulars have made the effort to write it.

When was it agreed that clc needed a charter? Who wrote it, specifically?
When was it voted on?
>(I didn't participate in this myself.)

Who did?
>If you want it changed, the ball is in your court.

Why would we need to change a non-normative document?
I'm referring to the "Introduction to comp.lang.c" document at
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c>, and other
documents on that site.

It's certainly not a charter in any formal sense, but it does seem to
reflect the consensus about what's topical here and what's not, and
many of us cite it when suggesting that a particular post is
off-topic.

If the consensus about what's topical here were to change, I hope that
any such changes would be reflected in that document. (I'm not
suggesting that any changes should be made.)

A formal charter is typically written before a newsgroup is created,
and can be cited as an authoritative source of topicality rules.
(Well, as authoritative as anything can be in an unmoderated group.)
The CLC wiki, on the other hand, is derived from the consensus on the
group rather than being the basis for it -- but it still, IMHO, serves
much of the same purpose that a charter would if we had one.

--
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.
Jul 3 '06 #48

P: n/a
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:35:29 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Right. But it's the only ISO-conforming mode that implementation has, and
I'm not about to drop conformance checking just so that I can have borken
one-line comments.
I've no problem with that, but its still incorrect to say that the
compiler doesn't support the feature.

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 3 '06 #49

P: n/a
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:32:21 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>Mark McIntyre said:
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:12:24 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:
<snip>
>>>
Richard uses gcc

I assume you're a mind-reader.

No, he just has a good memory.
He's stating stuff about how you work which only you can state with
certainty, and IMHO he can't use it as a basis for an argument.
>No, he's not suggesting any such thing; he is merely reporting what actually
happens.
>and then say that it doesn't conform to C99. Come now.

Mark, he's /right/. Please don't call him silly for being right.
I called him silly for being irrelevant.
>I invoke
the compiler in C90 conforming mode for portability reasons. Note that, on
the implementation I use, there *isn't* a C99-conforming mode.
Absolutely. You *deliberately* invoke it in a non-conforming way and
*gasp* it doesn't conform.

Frankly thats a silly point to raise when claiming the compiler
doesn't support a feature. You could as well say it doesn't support
Fortran77 or Algol syntax. Of /course/ it doesn't, if you don't invoke
it with the right flags.

So you're silly, Keith is silly and I'm silly for continuing this
childish debate.
<EOT>
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Jul 3 '06 #50

55 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.