Downloadable standards file?

[Jim Cook]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:46:35 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

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

It depends on how you look at it.

My point was that gcc isn't a de-facto standard, its merely an
implementation.

If you choose to consider gcc a standard, then so is MSVC.
And Watcom, Borland, VaxC, Visual Basic, x86, sparc, driving on the
left, yards of ale, and anything else you care to mention that is *in
its own very specialised area* the main or only player.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:39:11 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>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.

>Jealous people are to be expected.

This post suggests strongly that the respondent is mean spirited and
petty, as well as ludicrously over-sensitive. I'm sure thats not the
public persona you want to transmit. How will it help sales?
--
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

[Chris Torek]

In article <00*****************************@news.verizon.ne t>
Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.netwrote:

>... In the embedded space, there is nothing even
remotely interesting about C99.

This is not strictly true: at Wind River Systems, we are (obviously
very slowly) working on full C99 support, apparently by (low
priority) request from embedded customers. Since we have the Dinkum
library for RTPs, we already have (at least potentially) full
library support; we still lack some items in the compilers (gcc
and Diab) though.

Still, it is true that a lot of embedded customers seem not even
to be interested in Standard C89/C90 support. :-) (I think a lot
depends on your embedded device: is it a $5 part that goes into a
digital thermostat, for instance, or is it a $500 part in a car
"infotainment" unit, or a $50000 part that goes in a hospital?)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) [phone]
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.

[Randy Howard]

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

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?

I knew that long before this thread started. Don't you worry.

>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.

If it was your business, and private as you imply, you wouldn't
have brought it up at all. You made it public on your own, then
did it half-way. That's your mistake if you wanted it to be
your own business, or well understood and not mistaken.

And I have
BOUGHT THE COPYRIGHT from the editor of lcc for a SUBSTANTIAL
quantity of money. I am still paying that loan.

I hope it pans out for you.

I am not a thief, and you are just somebody that feels a need
to discharge your aggressions (like many people in this group).

No, you gave a much different impression the way you mentioned
it earlier.

Jealous people are to be expected.

Keep expecting them, you may find some young enough and naive
enough to feel that way.

I understand your point of view:

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