473,326 Members | 2,173 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,326 software developers and data experts.

Downloadable standards file?

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

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

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

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

(Aside: if the consensus is to reject the new standard, why should one
be created? Do the people who say to use C90 really think it's better to
lock C forever to that? If my compiler is C99, shouldn't I be encouraged
to conform to that standard?)
Dec 14 '06 #1
53 2818
Jim Cook wrote:
I previously had asked if there was an online standards file so I could
read that and answer my own questions without posting here and getting
flamed for not having done my homework.

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

Is there a C90 file I can download for free and cross reference with my
C99 one?
A quick search gives me

http://web.archive.org/web/200502070...c89-draft.html

as one possibility.

Note that n1124 is a post-C99 draft, not official C99. Similarly, there
is no official C90 freely available.
I have seen the FAQ 11.2 that says it's available for purchase. Given
that the C99/N1124.PDF appeared to be free from
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1124.pdf, I was hoping
that there was at least a "good enough" C90 one also for free.

(Aside: if the consensus is to reject the new standard, why should one
be created? Do the people who say to use C90 really think it's better to
lock C forever to that? If my compiler is C99, shouldn't I be encouraged
to conform to that standard?)
It depends on how portable you want your code to be. Personally, I have
no problem with people using the common subset of C99 and what their
compiler supports. If anyone wants to compile that code with a
different compiler, and it rejects it because it doesn't support enough
of C99, it's the compiler that's at fault, not the code. Others prefer
to be able to compile their code on any platform with any conforming
compiler and write in the common subset of C90 and C99. What's best for
you is for you to decide.

Dec 14 '06 #2
Jim Cook a écrit :
I previously had asked if there was an online standards file so I could
read that and answer my own questions without posting here and getting
flamed for not having done my homework.

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

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

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

(Aside: if the consensus is to reject the new standard, why should one
be created? Do the people who say to use C90 really think it's better to
lock C forever to that? If my compiler is C99, shouldn't I be encouraged
to conform to that standard?)
The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

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

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

That document (n1124.pdf) is OK for personal use, but maybe you
should get the real standard (around 20 dollars) from ANSI,
or get the book "The C standard" (Wiley).

You can get it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Incor...e=UTF8&s=books

That book is more expensive than the PDF of the standard from ANSI (48
dollars).

Dec 14 '06 #3

"jacob navia" <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote in message
news:45***********************@news.orange.fr...
Jim Cook a écrit :
>I previously had asked if there was an online standards file so I could
read that and answer my own questions without posting here and getting
flamed for not having done my homework.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

That document (n1124.pdf) is OK for personal use, but maybe you
should get the real standard (around 20 dollars) from ANSI,
or get the book "The C standard" (Wiley).

You can get it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Incor...e=UTF8&s=books

That book is more expensive than the PDF of the standard from ANSI (48
dollars).

Dec 14 '06 #4
In article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>,
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are
speaking for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that
standard makes older standards obsolete.
Surprisingly, ISO agrees:

This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition,
ISO/IEC9899:1990 [...]

So C90 is no longer an ISO standard, and therefore off-topic.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Dec 14 '06 #5
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:48:22 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.
Older standards are not 'obsolate' (whatever that exactly means).
Standards are not laws, they have no legislative power.
>Who cares?
The current standard is C99.
The _latest_ C starndard is C99. I guess C90 is currently used by the
majority of C programmers.

Best regards,
Roland Pibinger
Dec 14 '06 #6
"Roland Pibinger" <rp*****@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:45***************@news.utanet.at...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:48:22 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>>The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are
speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

Older standards are not 'obsolate' (whatever that exactly means).
Standards are not laws, they have no legislative power.
Many ISO standards are enforced by laws in various jurisdictions. Not
the C one, thankfully, but many standards have a lot of de facto power
even when they doesn't have de jure power. For example, just try
connecting to the Internet without comforming to RFC 791.
>>Who cares?
The current standard is C99.

The _latest_ C starndard is C99. I guess C90 is currently used by the
majority of C programmers.
Hogwash. The majority of C programmers use either Microsoft C or
GNU/POSIX C, not ISO C.

Intel couldn't even give away copies of ICC until they implemented all
the Microsoft and GNU extensions (and they're still having trouble,
since ICC produces code that deliberately performs worse on AMD CPUs).

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dec 14 '06 #7
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

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

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.
[...]

Unfortunately, that's not realistic.

It is a fact that most C compilers implement the (officially obsolete)
C90 standard. It is also a fact, unfortunately, that most C compilers
do *not* yet fully implement the (now official) C99 standard.

I will note that jacob's own lcc-win32 compiler fails to implement
some features of C99. You can write conforming C99 code all you like,
but if you happen to use those features, lcc-win32 will reject it, as
will most other C compilers that you're likely to able to use. If you
want to write conforming C code as an academic exercise, feel free to
do so. If you happen to have one of the few implementations that
fully implements the C99 standard, and you're not concerned with
portability to other implementations, that's great. If you want to be
able to compile your code on as many systems as possible, I'm afraid
you're going to avoid those features of C99 that are not already in
C90.

Few, if any, posters here have said that the C language *should* be
restricted to the C90 standard. That is a distortion on jacob's part;
I can only assume that it's a deliberate one.

Many of us, myself included, have simply acknowledged the reality that
code that uses C99 features *is not portable*. Ignoring that fact is
foolish. I look forward eagerly to the day when all C implementations
(gcc, lcc-win32, Microsoft, etc.) fully support C99, but there is no
virtue in pretending that that day has already arrived. The only way
that's going to happen is if the *implementers* make it happen; as
programmers, there's not a whole lot we can do about it (other than
applying whatever pressure we can on the implementers).

Note that C99 is very nearly a superset of C90. If you write code in
the common subset of the two versions of the language (that basically
means writing conforming C90 code while avoiding the new C99
keywords), then you'll have code that is valid C99, and that any
future compiler, whether it conforms to C99 or not, will be able to
handle.

jacob, if you believe that C90 is "obsolete", why does your own
lcc-win32 compiler not fully support the current standard, seven years
after it was issued? I understand that it's a lot of work, and I'm
honestly not criticizing you for not having done it yet. But given
that fact, I'm bewildered by your insistence on ignoring C90.

C90 is *officially* obsolete, according to ISO. C99, and only C99, is
currently the *official* C standard, according to ISO. I truly wish
that those offical statements were better reflected in reality, but
they are not.

--
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.
Dec 14 '06 #8
2006-12-14 <el**********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>,
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are
speaking for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that
standard makes older standards obsolete.

Surprisingly, ISO agrees:

This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition,
ISO/IEC9899:1990 [...]

So C90 is no longer an ISO standard, and therefore off-topic.
I thought the consensus was that all present and past C standards [and
with K&R1 counting as a standard] were on-topic.
-- Richard
Dec 15 '06 #9
2006-12-14 <45***********************@free.teranews.com>,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Roland Pibinger" <rp*****@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:45***************@news.utanet.at...
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:48:22 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>>>The people that told you that standard C is "rejected" here are
speaking
for themselves. The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.

Older standards are not 'obsolate' (whatever that exactly means).
Standards are not laws, they have no legislative power.

Many ISO standards are enforced by laws in various jurisdictions. Not
the C one, thankfully, but many standards have a lot of de facto power
even when they doesn't have de jure power. For example, just try
connecting to the Internet without comforming to RFC 791.
In a lot of cases, some of it is a question of just _how_ non-conformant.

For example:
} Time to Live: 8 bits
} This field indicates the maximum time the datagram is allowed to
} remain in the internet system. If this field contains the value
} zero, then the datagram must be destroyed.

Now, if, say, I let every fifth packet through without decrementing it
or destroying it if it's reached zero, I'm not going to run into any
immediate problems in terms of getting booted off by machines, and it
may take a while for any humans to notice the problem.

Note that RFCs aren't generally standards. Now, as it happens, RFC 791
is also STD 5.
Dec 15 '06 #10
jacob navia said:

<snip>
The current standard is C99, and that standard makes
older standards obsolete.
If that is true, then your own implementation is obsolete, since it doesn't
conform to C99.

In practice, of course, C90 *is* the C Standard, no matter what ISO say, and
C99 is what will eventually replace it *only* if sufficient people can be
bothered to write conforming C99 implementations - which almost nobody has
seen fit to do, up to now.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #11
On Dec 14, 6:48 pm, jacob navia <j...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
<snip>
There is a group of people here that think that C should be as
backward looking as possible, they reject C99 want to come to 1989
and maybe even earlier.

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.
I really do care. First, I have yet to see a fully C99-compliant
compiler and second, there are a number of platforms on which this will
never happen. Since my code needs to run there as well (at least for
now), I'll stick to C90 (+ extensions) for as long as it's needed. From
my perspective, saying "Who cares?" implies pure ignorance.
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get

Dec 15 '06 #12
matevzb a écrit :
On Dec 14, 6:48 pm, jacob navia <j...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
<snip>
>>There is a group of people here that think that C should be as
backward looking as possible, they reject C99 want to come to 1989
and maybe even earlier.

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

I really do care. First, I have yet to see a fully C99-compliant
compiler and second, there are a number of platforms on which this will
never happen. Since my code needs to run there as well (at least for
now), I'll stick to C90 (+ extensions) for as long as it's needed. From
my perspective, saying "Who cares?" implies pure ignorance.
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get
Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?
If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision. I accept
that but the current standard is not C90, and as such there is
no point in trying to move backwards all the language because
of a possible problem with your code.

Which platform?
What problems did you encounter?

You do not specify...

Dec 15 '06 #13
jacob navia said:

<snip>
Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?
No reason at all. That's the whole point of portability. It simply doesn't
matter where his code runs.
If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.
Quite so. Even if he had a C99-conforming compiler, which is doubtful, it
appears that he'd rather use something that stands a chance of porting to
other platforms.
I accept
that but the current standard is not C90,
It's true that C90 is not the current de jure standard, but it remains the
current de facto standard for those who require portability.
and as such there is
no point in trying to move backwards all the language because
of a possible problem with your code.
Fine, so let's move the language forwards by getting some C99-conforming
implementations out there. There are way too few right now to make it a
viable standard.
Which platform?
Why should that matter? This is *C*, not Visual Basic.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #14
On Dec 15, 3:52 pm, jacob navia <j...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?
You shouldn't but I have to.
If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.
It's not that I don't want to, it's that I can't.
Which platform?
What problems did you encounter?

You do not specify...
But you said you don't care.
<OT>It should run on HPUX, Windows, Solaris, Linux, Tru64, IRIX, Sinix,
AIX, Netware, SCO (OpenServer and UnixWare) to name the less
problematic ones. Then there are MPE/iX and OpenVMS (maybe AS/400 as
well). Note that gcc is only used for Linux (not my decision) and that
support for multiple versions of each system is required.</OT>
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get

Dec 15 '06 #15
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
jacob navia said:

<snip>

>>Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?


No reason at all. That's the whole point of portability. It simply doesn't
matter where his code runs.

>>If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.


Quite so. Even if he had a C99-conforming compiler, which is doubtful, it
appears that he'd rather use something that stands a chance of porting to
other platforms.
So What?

Is this group called:

comp.std.portable

???

or maybe

comp.lang.portable

Look: I am not AGAINST portability, it is just
one of the variables that are useful in my work.

Another is easy of use, and yet another is efficiency.

When I write:

int fn(int Elements_Count)
{
double tab[Elements_Count];
}
This is easier FOR ME, than the other alternatives.

Why should I change my way of writing C programs because
some compiler doesn't implement this stuff?

Why should this group be obsessed with writing portable
programs? This is not the subject of this group but
the C language and the C standard as it is.

You do not like it?

Make a new group:

comp.lang.portable

where you discuss portability to all toasters of the world
where they run in the famous embedded processor that
doesn't use the bss (:-) or any other stuff for that
matter.
Dec 15 '06 #16
matevzb a écrit :
On Dec 15, 3:52 pm, jacob navia <j...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?

You shouldn't but I have to.
>>If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.

It's not that I don't want to, it's that I can't.
>>Which platform?
What problems did you encounter?

You do not specify...

But you said you don't care.
<OT>It should run on HPUX, Windows, Solaris, Linux, Tru64, IRIX, Sinix,
AIX, Netware, SCO (OpenServer and UnixWare) to name the less
problematic ones. Then there are MPE/iX and OpenVMS (maybe AS/400 as
well). Note that gcc is only used for Linux (not my decision) and that
support for multiple versions of each system is required.</OT>
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get
IBM Provides a C99 compiler for AIX. HPUX and TRUE64 use Compaq C, that
provides C99 support as they say in their web page.
SCO I do not know, but Windows you have many compilers with C99
support.
In any case I do not want to force you to use C99, but we are
discussing C here, not portability.

This NOT comp.lang.portable (as far as I see)

Yes, for your company portability is a must, so you must use
the smalles common denominator of all the compilers in all
the systems you support, and avoiding the BUGS in any version of all
of them.

Would you say then, "Do not use malloc"

Why?

Because the compiler in OSxxx version YYY has a bug in it.

OK. If you want to run in OSxxx and you have a cutomer with
version YYY of that system, and you must run there you do not
use malloc.

But why should that problem be a GENERAL RULE?

I mean I understand your problem, but please, you must understand
that in general, malloc runs, even if it is not portable because
the efficiency varies wildly from one implementation to the other,
and some of them are just awful or buggy...

Dec 15 '06 #17
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>jacob navia said:

<snip>

>>>Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?


No reason at all. That's the whole point of portability. It simply
doesn't matter where his code runs.

>>>If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.


Quite so. Even if he had a C99-conforming compiler, which is doubtful, it
appears that he'd rather use something that stands a chance of porting to
other platforms.

So What?
So that's why C90 remains useful to a great many C programmers.
>
Is this group called:

comp.std.portable

???
No, it's called comp.lang.c, and C90 is by far the most popular C standard
in existence, in terms of compiler support.
<snip>
Why should I change my way of writing C programs because
some compiler doesn't implement this stuff?
No reason at all. C99 is topical here too.
Why should this group be obsessed with writing portable programs?
It isn't obsessed. It's concerned with portability. That is a valid and
sensible concern.

This is not the subject of this group but
the C language and the C standard as it is.
And the C Standard *is* C90. Yes, there's a new one out, but the real world
didn't catch up yet, with actual conforming compilers (except for a small
handful which almost nobody claims to use). In any event, K&R C remains
topical some 17 years after the ANSI C Standard was published, and C90
remains topical even though C99 has been out for 7 years. And when C0x is
ratified, C99 will still remain topical - and so will C90 and K&R C.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #18
jacob navia said:

<snip>
IBM Provides a C99 compiler for AIX. HPUX and TRUE64 use Compaq C, that
provides C99 support as they say in their web page.
But do they claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know whether those
compilers will compile your C99 programs.
SCO I do not know, but Windows you have many compilers with C99
support.
Do those compilers claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know
whether they'll compile your C99 programs.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #19
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
jacob navia said:

<snip>

>>IBM Provides a C99 compiler for AIX. HPUX and TRUE64 use Compaq C, that
provides C99 support as they say in their web page.


But do they claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know whether those
compilers will compile your C99 programs.

>>SCO I do not know, but Windows you have many compilers with C99
support.


Do those compilers claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know
whether they'll compile your C99 programs.

<snip>
Look, IBM says explicitely that they conform to the standard. Comeau
compiler
under windows says explicitely it conforms.

Of course you want a new standard that is implemented 100% everywhere.
That can't be, so you will always find something.

The situation is much worse in C++, where there was in a recent
survey by Plauger almost no compiler fully conforms.

Would you say then that programming in C++ is impossible?

And if some compiler has a bug, or a non-implemented stuff, so
what?

You call the maintenance and that was it.

And the compilers that DO conform to C90, do they always generate
100% verifieble CORRECT CODE? (What is even more important than
standards conformance)

No. They may have BUGS as many other stuff!

So what?

You call the maintenance! That's all.
Dec 15 '06 #20
On Dec 15, 9:31 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
<snip>
But do they claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know whether those
compilers will compile your C99 programs.
Some of them do, to a certain extent of course. But then there's
usually some kind of smallprint (e.g. untested, this doesn't compile
yet etc.) so it's generally very time consuming to figure out what one
can use on all platforms.

In general I guess Jacob could be semi-right regarding issues on
portability, so maybe there should be say comp.lang.c90,
comp.lang.c.portable or even comp.unix.posix_in_real_life =)
I'll take my portability issues elsewhere next time...
--
WYCIWYG - what you C is what you get

Dec 15 '06 #21
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>jacob navia said:

<snip>

>>>IBM Provides a C99 compiler for AIX. HPUX and TRUE64 use Compaq C, that
provides C99 support as they say in their web page.


But do they claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know whether
those compilers will compile your C99 programs.

>>>SCO I do not know, but Windows you have many compilers with C99
support.


Do those compilers claim *conformance* to C99? If not, you don't know
whether they'll compile your C99 programs.

<snip>

Look, IBM says explicitely that they conform to the standard.
Compiler, yes. No libc.
Comeau compiler
under windows says explicitely it conforms.
I found no such statement. Cite?
Of course you want a new standard that is implemented 100% everywhere.
I'd want at least two of Borland, Microsoft and gcc to provide a conforming
compiler, together with at least one mainframe compiler (LE370 or similar)
and one Mac compiler.
That can't be, so you will always find something.

The situation is much worse in C++, where there was in a recent
survey by Plauger almost no compiler fully conforms.

Would you say then that programming in C++ is impossible?
No, you can write programs in C++ to your heart's content - you just can't
compile them (unless, of course, you are using the compilers that do
conform).

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #22
matevzb said:

<snip>
In general I guess Jacob could be semi-right
If only. It would be a 50% improvement on his usual performance.
regarding issues on portability,
Mr Navia doesn't understand portability, as his track record here in clc
shows clearly.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 15 '06 #23
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
Why should this group be obsessed with writing portable
programs? This is not the subject of this group but
the C language and the C standard as it is.

You do not like it?

Make a new group:

comp.lang.portable

where you discuss portability to all toasters of the world
where they run in the famous embedded processor that
doesn't use the bss (:-) or any other stuff for that
matter.
C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.

You seem to be asserting this newsgroup is required to follow ISO
rules. Given the fact that the C90 standard is still significant, I
can see no basis for such a requirement.

There is no formal charter for this newsgroup, but the general
consensus seems to be that C99, C90, and even K&R and earlier versions
of C are considered topical. If you don't like *that*, make your own
newsgroup.

--
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.
Dec 15 '06 #24
Richard Heathfield a écrit :
matevzb said:

<snip>

>>In general I guess Jacob could be semi-right


If only. It would be a 50% improvement on his usual performance.

>>regarding issues on portability,


Mr Navia doesn't understand portability, as his track record here in clc
shows clearly.
Translation:

"Mr Navia doesn't agree with me. Since I can't accept that fact
(who would DARE to disagree with me?) it is just that he doesn't
UNDERSTAND portability"

:-)

jacob
Dec 15 '06 #25
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.
And C90 is no longer an ISO standard.

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

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Dec 16 '06 #26
jacob navia wrote:
matevzb a écrit :
><j...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
.... snip ...
>>>
Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

I really do care. First, I have yet to see a fully C99-compliant
compiler and second, there are a number of platforms on which
this will never happen. Since my code needs to run there as well
(at least for now), I'll stick to C90 (+ extensions) for as long
as it's needed. From my perspective, saying "Who cares?" implies
pure ignorance.

Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?
If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision. I accept
that but the current standard is not C90, and as such there is
no point in trying to move backwards all the language because
of a possible problem with your code.

Which platform? What problems did you encounter?
You do not specify...
Why should he? He isn't writing for HIS compiler or platform. He
is writing to not care what compiler is used. He has high
confidence in the results if he avoids C99 specific abilities.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Dec 16 '06 #27
matevzb wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
<OT>It should run on HPUX, Windows, Solaris, Linux, Tru64, IRIX,
Sinix, AIX, Netware, SCO (OpenServer and UnixWare) to name the less
problematic ones. Then there are MPE/iX and OpenVMS (maybe AS/400 as
well). Note that gcc is only used for Linux (not my decision) and
that support for multiple versions of each system is required.</OT>
I believe gcc runs on at least HPUX, Windows, Solaris, Linux, AIX.
Quite likely some, if not all, of the other named ones.

Here are a few of the systems it runs on, according to "info gcc":

_Machine Dependent Options_
*Note Hardware Models and Configurations: Submodel Options.

_M680x0 Options_
_M68hc1x Options_
_VAX Options_
_SPARC Options_
_Convex Options_
_AMD29K Options_
_ARM Options_
_MN10200 Options_
_MN10300 Options_
_M32R/D Options_
_M88K Options_
_RS/6000 and PowerPC Options_
_RT Options_
_MIPS Options_
_i386 and x86-64 Options_
_HPPA Options_
_Intel 960 Options_
_DEC Alpha Options_
_DEC Alpha/VMS Options_
_Clipper Options_
_H8/300 Options_
_SH Options_
_System V Options_
_ARC Options_
_TMS320C3x/C4x Options_
_V850 Options_
_NS32K Options_
_AVR Options_
_MCore Options_
_MMIX Options_
_IA-64 Options_
_D30V Options_
_S/390 and zSeries Options_
_CRIS Options_
_PDP-11 Options_
_Xstormy16 Options_
_Xtensa Options_

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Dec 16 '06 #28
jacob navia wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
Would you say then that programming in C++ is impossible?
Or nearly so. :-)

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Dec 16 '06 #29
ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.

And C90 is no longer an ISO standard.

Since it's clearly still a standard, but not a de jure standard,
it must be a de facto standard. Like, say, gcc...
gcc has its own set of newsgroups.

There are several ways the topicality of this newsgroup *could* be
defined. The way it should be and is defined, by a fairly broad
consensus, includes C90 but excludes gcc-specific extensions.

--
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.
Dec 16 '06 #30
jacob navia said:

<snip>
Translation:

"Mr Navia doesn't agree with me. Since I can't accept that fact
Sure I can.
(who would DARE to disagree with me?)
Lots of people. They do it all the time. And sometimes they're right and I'm
wrong. When that is the case, I generally say so.
it is just that he doesn't UNDERSTAND portability"
Check Mr Navia's track record in this group, and it will become evident that
this is indeed the case.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Dec 16 '06 #31
Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article <jK******************************@bt.com>):
jacob navia said:

<snip>
>Excuse me but why I should care where YOUR code runs on?

No reason at all. That's the whole point of portability. It simply doesn't
matter where his code runs.
>If you do not want to use C99 it is your decision.

Quite so. Even if he had a C99-conforming compiler, which is doubtful, it
appears that he'd rather use something that stands a chance of porting to
other platforms.
>I accept
that but the current standard is not C90,

It's true that C90 is not the current de jure standard, but it remains the
current de facto standard for those who require portability.
You left out "... or for those that require a working
implementation conforming to a published standard for their
target platform(s)".
>and as such there is
no point in trying to move backwards all the language because
of a possible problem with your code.

Fine, so let's move the language forwards by getting some C99-conforming
implementations out there. There are way too few right now to make it a
viable standard.
Well, given that it'll soon be a decade later, and still people
will be searching for "C99" compilers (or have just given up by
then), what's the point? The incredibly small number of people
that actually have a deep an abiding need for a C99 compiler
must have found one by now, or written their own. The rest of
the C programming universe obviously doesn't care enough to
solve the problem. Some problems just don't need solving.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Dec 16 '06 #32
jacob navia wrote
(in article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>):
Look, IBM says explicitely that they conform to the standard. Comeau
compiler under windows says explicitely it conforms.
Yippee. Yawn.
Of course you want a new standard that is implemented 100% everywhere.
Who said they wanted that? Hint: C99 isn't a "new standard".
Furthermore, it's nowhere /near/ being implemented 100%
everywhere. Laughable.
That can't be, so you will always find something.
What decade will it be available for 90% of the platforms out
there? 100 years after that answer is positive for C90
compilers?
The situation is much worse in C++, where there was in a recent
survey by Plauger almost no compiler fully conforms.
Almost no C++ programmer fully conforms to C++ either. :-)
Would you say then that programming in C++ is impossible?
Almost a "Yes", regardless of the survey data. *cough*
And if some compiler has a bug, or a non-implemented stuff, so
what?
Spoken like a true non-standard compiler developer. :P
(What is even more important than standards conformance)
Having a compiler that is even pretending to implement the
standard you wish to have conformance with in the first place
would be a good start.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Dec 16 '06 #33
Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article <MY******************************@bt.com>):
jacob navia said:
>Look, IBM says explicitely that they conform to the standard.

Compiler, yes. No libc.
[snip]
>Of course you want a new standard that is implemented 100% everywhere.

I'd want at least two of Borland, Microsoft and gcc to provide a conforming
compiler, together with at least one mainframe compiler (LE370 or similar)
and one Mac compiler.
You partially in luck, because gcc runs on Mac OS X. So,
if/when gcc gets there for Windows/dos/whatever, it'll get there
for the Mac. You also seem to be leaving out probably the
biggest set of C developers still in the wild, those writing
code for embedded environments, but of course most of them
probably have no use for c99 at all. Then again, neither do
most of the rest. :-)

Of course, as you mentioned above, you also need a libc to go
along with it.

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

Dec 16 '06 #34
Randy Howard a écrit :
jacob navia wrote
(in article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>):

>>Look, IBM says explicitely that they conform to the standard. Comeau
compiler under windows says explicitely it conforms.


Yippee. Yawn.

>>Of course you want a new standard that is implemented 100% everywhere.


Who said they wanted that? Hint: C99 isn't a "new standard".
Furthermore, it's nowhere /near/ being implemented 100%
everywhere. Laughable.

>>That can't be, so you will always find something.


What decade will it be available for 90% of the platforms out
there? 100 years after that answer is positive for C90
compilers?

>>The situation is much worse in C++, where there was in a recent
survey by Plauger almost no compiler fully conforms.


Almost no C++ programmer fully conforms to C++ either. :-)

>>Would you say then that programming in C++ is impossible?


Almost a "Yes", regardless of the survey data. *cough*

>>And if some compiler has a bug, or a non-implemented stuff, so
what?


Spoken like a true non-standard compiler developer. :P

>>(What is even more important than standards conformance)


Having a compiler that is even pretending to implement the
standard you wish to have conformance with in the first place
would be a good start.

Who are you to give me lessons man?

Do *I* tell you what you have to do?

I have spend the last 5 years working in a C99 implementation
that I distribute at no charge. As you noticed elsewhere,
a full libc implementation is also needed, not to mention the
code generation part.

I am nowhere near 100% complicance but I have implemented most of this
standard. And I have done it without any big companies behind
me like gcc and Red-hat/IBM, that contribute to their quite big budget.

A completely new implementation of printf/the math library/ many strings
functions, etc etc.

Plese keep this in mind:

I am not part of any standards comitee, and I do not earn a penny more
if you use the current standard or you come back to 1989 or even
earlier...

Why not K&R C?

There are many embedded compilers producing code for yesteryear's
coffee machine that are still in K&R C, so use THAT...
Dec 16 '06 #35
jacob navia wrote
(in article <45**********************@news.orange.fr>):
>>>(What is even more important than standards conformance)
>Having a compiler that is even pretending to implement the
standard you wish to have conformance with in the first place
would be a good start.

Who are you to give me lessons man?
I'm not trying to give you lessons. You asked a question, and I
answered it with my opinion.

You have historically shown a distinctively low absorption rate
for accurate information delivered from others anyway, so I
won't bother hoping for you to learn anything from me, or anyone
else for that matter.

As to the "who are you", I'll just say someone that has been
writing C programs, portable ones, on a whole lot more
compilers, platforms and CPU architectures than you've ever even
been in the same room with, since you were in diapers, if I had
my guess. Enough of that...
Do *I* tell you what you have to do?
No. But it's a stupid question, since I haven't told you what
you have to do. More importantly, I haven't told anyone here
what they have to do.
I have spend [sic] the last 5 years working in a C99 implementation
that I distribute at no charge. As you noticed elsewhere,
a full libc implementation is also needed, not to mention the
code generation part.
Good for you.
I am nowhere near 100% complicance [sic] but I have implemented most of this
standard.
So somewhere between "most" and "nowhere near 100%", whatever
that means.
And I have done it without any big companies behind me like gcc
and Red-hat/IBM, that contribute to their quite big budget.
I didn't realize gcc was a big company. I thought it was a C
compiler, and a pretty damn good one, particularly when invoked
with the correct command line arguments so that it doesn't
compile a variant language which I don't want to use.
Plese keep this in mind:

I am not part of any standards comitee [sic],and I do not earn a penny more
if you use the current standard or you come back to 1989 or even
earlier...
I don't give a popcorn fart whether you make any money or not.
That wasn't even remotely related to what you replied to. I
have no idea why it's even an issue.
Why not K&R C?
I have written a lot of K&R C in the past. Today, every
platform that I care about has a workable C89/90 compiler that
will compile code and generate the expected code for same.

Furthermore, that C standard provided a lot of very useful
features not available with K&R C, so it is worth taking
advantage of them.

If I had a reason to work on a platform for which no C89
implementation were available, I'm sure good old K&R C could fit
the need.

I can't even pretend to claim that all those platforms have C99
support. Not even a tiny subset of them. If otherwise, I might
feel differently, although the vast majority of the C99
extensions I wouldn't ever use even if ubiquitously available.

/NONE/ of the extensions you have put into your "navia-C"
non-standard compiler would ever be used in any of my code,
because they are present not only in a single compiler, but for
a single processor family and single operating system (minus a
few MS branding changes and service packs). In other words,
100% worthless for someone interested in portable code
development.
There are many embedded compilers producing code for yesteryear's
coffee machine that are still in K&R C, so use THAT...
So, I never told you what to do, but you pretended to be
offended that I did, and here you go, doing the same. Hypocrisy
noted.

Well guess what, I have quite a few compilers handy here for
various embedded controllers, and all of those I am interested
in have C89/90 support. NONE of them even pretend to be C99
compilers. In the embedded space, there is nothing even
remotely interesting about C99.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Dec 16 '06 #36
Randy Howard a écrit :
/NONE/ of the extensions you have put into your "navia-C"
non-standard compiler would ever be used in any of my code,
because they are present not only in a single compiler, but for
a single processor family and single operating system (minus a
few MS branding changes and service packs). In other words,
100% worthless for someone interested in portable code
development.
The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors. You just have no idea
and you just speak out your prejudices.

But surely my compiler is not for you anyway. Keep
away from it, and put me into your kill file.

OK?

Thanks in advance for uour understanding.
Dec 16 '06 #37
jacob navia wrote
(in article <45***********************@news.orange.fr>):
Randy Howard a écrit :
>/NONE/ of the extensions you have put into your "navia-C"
non-standard compiler would ever be used in any of my code,
because they are present not only in a single compiler, but for
a single processor family and single operating system (minus a
few MS branding changes and service packs). In other words,
100% worthless for someone interested in portable code
development.

The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors. You just have no idea
and you just speak out your prejudices.
Do I need to list all the combinations that are important for
portable programming that your list does not include? No, what
would be the point?
But surely my compiler is not for you anyway.
Yes, I've tried it. I'm well aware of this fact.
Keep away from it, and put me into your kill file.
Who's telling who what to do again? Your repeated hypocrisy is
again noted.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Dec 16 '06 #38
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:17:08 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>So What?

Is this group called:
comp.std.portable
???
Yet again, you display not only your contempt for the regulars here,
but also your incredible arrogance. I despair of you, its a real shame
to see someone so evidently intelligent throw away so much because of
a petty dispute.
--
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
Dec 16 '06 #39
On 15 Dec 2006 23:59:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
>In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.

And C90 is no longer an ISO standard.

Since it's clearly still a standard, but not a de jure standard,
it must be a de facto standard.
mhm.
>Like, say, gcc...
False extrapolation. gcc is an implementation of a standardised
language.
--
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
Dec 16 '06 #40
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.
The web page for lcc-win32, <http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/>,
mentions nothing other than MS Windows.

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

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

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

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

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_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.
Dec 16 '06 #41
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On 15 Dec 2006 23:59:12 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
>>In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>>>C99 is currently the official standard *according to ISO rules*.

And C90 is no longer an ISO standard.

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

mhm.
>>Like, say, gcc...

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

From the latter point of view, this:

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

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

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

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_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.
Dec 16 '06 #42
Keith Thompson a écrit :
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>>The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec 16 '06 #43
jacob navia wrote
(in article <45**********************@news.orange.fr>):
Keith Thompson a écrit :
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>>The version of lcc I am working with runs in Power-PC, linux,
windows, and several embedded processors.


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

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

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

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

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

There are versions for

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

This is not the original version of lcc, that is C89, but lcc-win32
with all the stupid extensions like true 64 bits long long, and
other C99 support. No they are not advertised in that web page because
they are sold, not given away for free.
So your point is that I should buy your compiler, for C99
support on a tiny subset of the platforms I'm interested in, so
I can have C99 support I don't need, instead of the free or
commercial compilers I have already purchased that fulfill all
my needs from them already?

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

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

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

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


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

Dec 16 '06 #44
Randy Howard a écrit :
jacob navia wrote
>>There are versions for

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

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


So your point is that I should buy your compiler, for C99
support on a tiny subset of the platforms I'm interested in, so
I can have C99 support I don't need, instead of the free or
commercial compilers I have already purchased that fulfill all
my needs from them already?
I am not selling anything to you. Is that clear?
Is it even legal to sell it? I note in particular from the lcc
Copyright message the following:

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

You compiler is obviously a lot more based upon their compiler
than a syntax checker would be.
I have rewritten most of it. But see below.
So, you admit publicly to selling a product, which by your own
description appears to be a clear violation of the copyright
under which the code is it based on was provided to you? IANAL,
but it's difficult to imagine how that isn't what I just saw
happen here.

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

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

Jealous people are to be expected.

I understand your point of view:

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

You are just wrong Mr.

What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

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

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

What have you contributed to gcc?

jacob
Dec 16 '06 #45
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

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

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

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

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_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.
Dec 16 '06 #46
Keith Thompson a écrit :
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>>What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

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

[...]

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

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

< QUOTE FROM MY ANSWER >

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

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

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

< END QUOTE>

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

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

Personally of course, I believe C90 is obsolete, as the standard
organization says. But if someone speaks about C90 (or MSDOS
or whatever!) I do not say that has nothing to do with C (within
limits of course).
Dec 16 '06 #47
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Keith Thompson a écrit :
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]
>>>What I have done?

Saying that the current standard is C99?

Trying to implement the current standard in my small implementation?

This brings me the aggressions of many people like you here,
that always have "STANDARD C" in their mouths but never contribute
anything to the community.
[...]
Saying that the current standard is C99 is fine. What annoys me
(speaking only for myself) is your repeated assertion that C90 is
off-topic in this newsgroup.
Trying to implement C99 in lcc-win32 is great. Trying to tell us
that
we should discuss *only* C99 in this newsgroup is not. The fact that
your own compiler does not fully implement the C99 standard just adds
to the irony. If I listened to you, I would just write code that
freely uses C99 features such as, say designated initializers -- and I
wouldn't be able to compile it if I chose to use your compiler.

This is not what I said!
Then perhaps I've misunderstood you.
< QUOTE FROM MY ANSWER >

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

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

Who cares?

The current standard is C99.

< END QUOTE>

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

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

You emphasized that C99 is the current standard, and I inferred from
your mention of "comp.lang.portable" that you feel that comp.lang.c
should only discuss the C language as defined by the current standard.
Personally of course, I believe C90 is obsolete, as the standard
organization says.
What exactly do you mean by "obsolete"? It's quite obvious to me that
the C90 standard is *not* obsolete, in any reasonable sense of the
word, for reasons that have been discussed at great length.
But if someone speaks about C90 (or MSDOS
or whatever!) I do not say that has nothing to do with C (within
limits of course).
No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_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.
Dec 16 '06 #48
Keith Thompson a écrit :
No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.
If we go on saying that the C99 standard will be never
implemented. Since too little was done to improve the
language in C99, the few improvements it brings
will be gone. We stay then with a language that doesn't
evolve, completely frozen.

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

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

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

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

I am against making "portability" by the smallest common
denominator the law here. That is the reason for my attitude.
Dec 16 '06 #49
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Keith Thompson a écrit :
>No, but you do complain when someone points out that the use of a
C99-specific feature makes a program less portable. I've always
assumed that your objections were based on topicality.

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

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

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

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

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

I am against making "portability" by the smallest common
denominator the law here. That is the reason for my attitude.
Nobody here, as far as I've seen, says that C is a dead end (except
perhaps for a few trolls); that's a figment of your imagination.

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

People point this out, and you complain about it.

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

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_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.
Dec 16 '06 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

4
by: Boniface Frederic | last post by:
Hello, I want to set some files downloadable only by members with login and password. I use session to protect my .html and .php files, but I would like to know how to protect .zip files....
3
by: JJ | last post by:
Hi, I am writing a cart in ASP selling downloadable files. The files are stored on remote locations i.e. http://www.thisfilestore.com/file1.zip And have different extensions, i.e. they are not...
9
by: Xah Lee | last post by:
is the Microsoft javascript doc downloadable? http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/script56/html/js56jsoriJScript.asp or, is there some other downloadable complete...
144
by: Natt Serrasalmus | last post by:
After years of operating without any coding standards whatsoever, the company that I recently started working for has decided that it might be a good idea to have some. I'm involved in this...
2
by: TJS | last post by:
is there a downloadable chm help file for asp.net ?
3
by: Hongbo | last post by:
Hi, We have a web site which needs user to login. After login, there are some files available for download on some pages. A typical link of such file is like this one:...
2
by: gen_tricomi | last post by:
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING THE GOOGLE INDEX DOWNLOADABLE I write here to make a request on behalf of all the programmers on earth who have been or are intending to use the Google web search API...
4
by: Jim Aikin | last post by:
I'd like to learn JavaScript while sitting in my easy chair with my laptop on my lap. Option 1: Buy a wireless router so I can access the plethora of online- only tutorials from anywhere in the...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.