c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio


In article <35p1cbF4nuf12U 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> writes:[color=blue]
> Michael Wojcik wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <35mr1tF4jf6cfU 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> writes:[color=darkred]
> >>I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)[/color]
> >
> > You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
> > out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
> > claims from assorted implementors in other threads.[/color]
>
> You failed to specify them, though.[/color]

It's not my job to do your research for you. You were wrong; I
pointed out that you were wrong, and noted where you could find the
necessary evidence. Your laziness does not refute my argument.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Had you simply searched for them you would have found them.[/color]
>
> That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
> exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
> implementors were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
> <drumroll>share </drumroll> was the fact that you knew them.[/color]

Try reading for comprehension. I told you that *I had posted at
least one example disproving your thesis* in a previous thread, in
this group. That's what you needed, and failed, to search for.

The necessary information had already been shared.

And if you think any of this has anything to do with zero-knowledge
proofs, you're sadly mistaken.
[color=blue]
> Wouldn't it have been much easyer if you had just listed them?[/color]

Easier for you, perhaps. I don't have any particular motive to make
things easy for you.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
> > compiler conforms to C99.[/color]
>
> Not in this thread, though.[/color]

Yes, that's what I meant by "in other threads".
[color=blue]
> BTW: why didn't you say that in your first post in this thread?[/color]

Because it should have been sufficient, for any moderately capable
and reasonable reader, to note simply that the relevant information
was available in the archives. And that is what I did.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@ microfocus.com

As always, great patience and a clean work area are required for fulfillment
of this diversion, and it should not be attempted if either are compromised.
-- Chris Ware

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio


In article <ct724b$smm$1@p anix2.panix.com >, comeau@panix.co m (Greg Comeau) writes:[color=blue]
> In article <csrrap0uu6@new s1.newsguy.com> ,
> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsgu y.com> wrote:[color=green]
> >
> >Since it is difficult to prove that an implementation is "completely
> >compliant", I don't expect you'll ever have a definitive answer.[/color]
>
> Which is true of say C90 too then.[/color]

Agreed. IMO it's not very useful to ask about proof of compliance;
what's useful is to ask whether the vendor has committed to a
compliant implementation, how far they should be trusted to have
provided one, and how likely they are to deal promptly with problems.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Or, conversely, if I were to say that I have found at
> >least one instance of non-compliance in every single existing
> >implementation ?[/color]
>
> Probably you can.[/color]

Not me - I'm too lazy. :-)
[color=blue][color=green]
> >(Actually, it's even worse than that, for some older products I
> >sometimes do maintenance work on; we have customer support agreements
> >for those which require that we continue to support *pre-standard*
> >implementation s, so for example the code still has abominable
> >conditional compilation to suppress generating prototypes when
> >building for those archaic implementations . Simply ghastly.)[/color]
>
> But often practical for those projects.[/color]

True, it's practical, in the sense that we can support those customers
and collect revenue from them. I think it probably makes business
sense; even if the revenue from those platforms isn't sufficient to
recoup the costs of supporting them (and I really have no idea whether
it is), there's value in a reputation for providing long-term support.

It's just ugly, and of course there are some risks (due to argument
promotions) if build errors lead to a mix of prototyped and non-
prototyped modules.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@ microfocus.com

Let's say the conservative is the quiet green grin of the crocodile ...
an' the liberal is the SNAP! -- Walt Kelly

[lawrence.jones@ugs.com]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Greg Comeau <comeau@panix.c om> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
> full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.[/color]

It certainly started quicker, but I'm not sure that it finished any
quicker. Nearly every implementation touted "ANSI Compatibility" before
the ANSI standard was even finalized, which left them between a rock and
a hard place once the final standard was approved and turned out to be
slightly different from what they had implemented and their user base
now depended on (sound familiar?). Although most implentations were
mostly conforming (if such a thing is possible) fairly quickly, it took
a long time for all of them to get to the point where they were supposed
to be fully conforming. And there were a few that took a long time to
even get started, mostly implementations that were entrenched monopolies
with little or no competition to spur them on (which describes most
extant implementations ). There were also some memorable bloopers, like
the implementation whose sole ANSI feature was that it defined __STDC__
as 1!

-Larry Jones

In short, open revolt and exile is the only hope for change? -- Calvin

[lawrence.jones@ugs.com]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Randy Howard <randyhoward@fo overizonbar.net > wrote:[color=blue]
>
> If someone could publish a subset of C99 that is
> commonly implemented on say 5 different C compilers that would
> be useful.[/color]

Inline functions, C++ style comments, and long long?

-Larry Jones

Apparently I was misinformed. -- Calvin

[Greg Comeau]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

In article <MPG.1c60dd1a58 e17357989e5c@ne ws.verizon.net> ,
Randy Howard <randyhoward@FO OverizonBAR.net > wrote:[color=blue]
>In article <ct73u0$a17$1@p anix2.panix.com >, comeau@panix.co m says...[color=green]
>> Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
>> platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.[/color]
>
>gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
>It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.[/color]

I feel like I've been tricked. Maybe I misunderstood,
but I thought somebody was asking for a subset of C99 that
could be used across multiple compilers and on multiple
platforms. gcc is definitely not a full c99 compiler,
but I think can meet the _substandard_ 5 features or whatever
that was being requested.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> To increase to 5 compiles, toss in Intel, IBM, Compaq, etc.[/color]
>
>Do they implement ALL of C99?[/color]

It's my understanding that those 3 do, or bugs notwithstanding ,
at least intend do (which is different than the case of gcc).
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >With C89/90, the "compliance " is such that it is rare that you
>> >can't get portable code to work on all of them.[/color]
>>
>> That's because efforts were made by vendors to target
>> full C90 compliance. And it happened quicker.[/color]
>
>Exactly the point.[/color]

I'm not convined it's exactly the point, even though I said it,
I just thing it's one aspect of many that leaps out as being
more true than false.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

In article <ct78fi$evs$1@n ntp1.jpl.nasa.g ov>,
E. Robert Tisdale <E.Robert.Tisda le@jpl.nasa.gov > wrote:[color=blue]
>Greg Comeau wrote:[color=green]
>> xuanbai98 wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>I want to know the current support status
>>>of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.[/color]
>>
>> Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
>>>to support c99 on Visual Studio?[/color]
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
>> Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
>> and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.[/color]
>
>Why should C programmers confine themselves
>to the capabilities of and inferior product
>like Microsoft Visual Studio?[/color]

Many reasons.
[color=blue]
>Why don't they just dump it?[/color]

Many people don't have that choice.
[color=blue]
>An switch to a C99 compliant implementation?[/color]

For many people, C99 doesn't offer the umph that
other "releases of C" have been able to provide,
even when not using an MS C compiler.

I'm trying to be the messager above, so I'm trying
to stay neutral on the provacative aspects of your post.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

In article <35p2c7F4is31mU 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Greg Comeau wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <35mdjjF4lo2n1U 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>>>>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>>Stopping me would be easy. Just post a list of C99 compliant compilers.
>>>>Define what you mean by "compliant" . Are there any C90 compliant
>>>>compilers out there, provably?
>>>I certainly haven't proved it. Then again, seems like no one
>>>even claims C99 compliance for their implementations .
>>>>>I'm not demanding any hard proof. A word from an
>>>>>author/implementor/producer would be fine.
>>>>
>>>>Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
>>>>"compliant" .
>>>
>>>Pretty impressive, yes. Founding fa..., that is, members, heh?[/color]
>>
>> What???[/color]
>
>http://www.comeaucomputing.com/ : Who is Comeau computing: "We are
>founding members of the ANSI/ISO C++ committee".[/color]

We are.
[color=blue]
>I was trying to be funny. I guess I failed.[/color]

Maybe I'm too biased, but I don't see it.
Fail free to explain, or equally let's just move on.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

In article <35p2c7F4is31mU 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Greg Comeau wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <35mdjjF4lo2n1U 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>>>>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>>>Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
>>>>"compliant" .
>>>So now we have
>>>"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
>>>Anybody else?[/color]
>>
>> We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
>> to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
>> modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
>> As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
>> Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.[/color]
>
>I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
>Would you care to elaborate?[/color]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Generally speaking,
all Standards have conflicting statments, ambiguities,
typos, missed intention, outright errors, etc. C90
had them as does C99. If this is not what you're asking,
elaborate on what your interest in the defects is/are,
and what you would like elaborated, and I'm sure folks
here will chime in appropriately.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[Greg Comeau]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

In article <slrncvf4s3.umi .chris@ccserver .keris.net>,
Chris Croughton <chris@keristor .net> wrote:[color=blue]
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:48:37 GMT, Randy Howard
> <randyhoward@FO OverizonBAR.net > wrote:[color=green]
>> In article <ct73u0$a17$1@p anix2.panix.com >, comeau@panix.co m says...[color=darkred]
>>> Comeau, gcc, and Dinkware are available across the most popular
>>> platforms, and that covers at least a reasonable subset.[/color]
>>
>> gcc (even with the c99 command line options) is not a c99 compiler.
>> It's "part" of one perhaps, but that's it.[/color]
>
>And doesn't provide the library, which is a large part of the
>specificatio n. GLIBC2 is a lot of the way there but still has some
>deficiencies .[/color]

This suggestion is not intended to change the above fact,
but it's worth pointing out that in addition to use with
Comeau on various platforms, that Dinkumware's C99 library
is available for use with gcc too on various platforms.
--
Greg Comeau / Comeau C++ 4.3.3, for C++03 core language support
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Greg Comeau wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'm trying to be the messager above, so I'm trying
> to stay neutral on the provacative aspects of your post.[/color]

You are *not* neutral.
You promote a product that competes with Microsoft Visual Studio.
You might claim to be "objective"
but you are obliged to divulge your biases and self interest.

[Eltee]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Greg Comeau wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <35p2c7F4is31mU 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Greg Comeau wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>In article <35mdjjF4lo2n1U 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:21:11 +0100, Eltee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Comeau's C compiler may well qualify for a reasonable definition of
>>>>>"compliant ".
>>>>
>>>>So now we have
>>>>"as close as you can get to full compliance" as our best candidate.
>>>>Anybody else?
>>>
>>>We do believe it is as close as you can get, to C90, to C99,
>>>to C++98, and C++03 (and tons of dialects and compatibility
>>>modes too). For all practical purposes, we are there.
>>>As has been pointed out, 100% conformance is a slippery slope.
>>>Not to mention that even the standards themselves have defects.[/color]
>>
>>I'm particularly interested in ISO C99 standard defects.
>>Would you care to elaborate?[/color]
>
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking.[/color]

I was wondering if you knew any defects in ISO C99 standard. If you do (you
should, since you implemented a compliant compiler), please tell us.
[color=blue]
> Generally speaking,
> all Standards have conflicting statments, ambiguities,
> typos, missed intention, outright errors, etc. C90
> had them as does C99. If this is not what you're asking,
> elaborate on what your interest in the defects is/are,
> and what you would like elaborated, and I'm sure folks
> here will chime in appropriately.[/color]

[Eltee]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Michael Wojcik wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <35p1cbF4nuf12U 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> writes:
>[color=green]
>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>In article <35mr1tF4jf6cfU 1@individual.ne t>, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> writes:
>>>
>>>>I stand corrected. Fortunately. ;-)
>>>
>>>You stood corrected much earlier in the discussion. I already pointed
>>>out that various people - including myself - had noted conformance
>>>claims from assorted implementors in other threads.[/color]
>>
>>You failed to specify them, though.[/color]
>
>
> It's not my job to do your research for you.[/color]

Of course not. Just like it's not your job to point out that I was wrong.
Neither is noting where I can find the "necessary evidence". Yet you chose to do
that. Instead of a couple of words (names, urls, whatever) that could resolve
the "issue" in a second, you chose to lecture me about lazyness, incomprehension
and whatnot. Are you always so friendly or just in this case?
[color=blue]
> You were wrong; I
> pointed out that you were wrong, and noted where you could find the
> necessary evidence. Your laziness does not refute my argument.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Had you simply searched for them you would have found them.[/color]
>>
>>That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
>>exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
>>implementor s were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
>><drumroll>sha re</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them.[/color]
>
>
> Try reading for comprehension. I told you that *I had posted at
> least one example disproving your thesis*[/color]

My _thesis_? That's a bit strong of a word, don't you find?
[color=blue]
> in a previous thread, in
> this group. That's what you needed, and failed, to search for.
>
> The necessary information had already been shared.
>
> And if you think any of this has anything to do with zero-knowledge
> proofs, you're sadly mistaken.
>
>[color=green]
>>Wouldn't it have been much easyer if you had just listed them?[/color]
>
>
> Easier for you, perhaps. I don't have any particular motive to make
> things easy for you.[/color]

Thanks a million, Michael.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>For example, not long ago I noted that HP claims that the OpenVMS C
>>>compiler conforms to C99.[/color]
>>
>>Not in this thread, though.[/color]
>
>
> Yes, that's what I meant by "in other threads".
>
>[color=green]
>>BTW: why didn't you say that in your first post in this thread?[/color]
>
>
> Because it should have been sufficient, for any moderately capable
> and reasonable reader, to note simply that the relevant information
> was available in the archives. And that is what I did.[/color]

Thanks again, your Michaelness. I'm forever in your debt. Not.

[Eltee]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Alan Balmer wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:04:32 +0100, Eltee <eltee@hotmail. com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>That's typical for this NG: people are using ZKPs. The quasy-versions, to be
>>exact. In this case you (personaly) knew (or so you say now) who those
>>implementor s were, yet the only thing you were prepared to
>><drumroll>sha re</drumroll> was the fact that you knew them. Wouldn't it have
>>been much easyer if you had just listed them? Because, you see, I have been in
>>too many situations where "somebody knew somebody", if you know what I mean.[/color]
>
>
> Then how could you possibly accept the word of an unknown who thinks
> he might remember something? Or should we assume that you are
> incapable of doing your own search, even when given the newsgroup to
> search in?
>
> You can expect guidance here, but you can't expect people to do all
> the work for you.[/color]

All the work? If this wasn't funny it'd be tragical. This is comp.lang._C_,
isn't it? People in here should know something about C, shouldn't they? Well, if
this whole business wasn't just academic they should know about compilers, too.
Especially those that adhere to the standard. I never realized that listing some
of those would be such an unthinkable thing to ask.

[BRG]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:[color=blue]
> Greg Comeau wrote:
>[color=green]
>> xuanbai98 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I want to know the current support status
>>> of c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Current VC has no purposeful support of C99, only of C90.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Anyone know whether Microsoft has any plan
>>> to support c99 on Visual Studio?[/color]
>>
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, their plan is a wait and see plan:
>> Wait and see if customer demand for it increases,
>> and wait and see which c99isms make their way into C++0x.[/color]
>
>
> Why should C programmers confine themselves
> to the capabilities of and inferior product
> like Microsoft Visual Studio?[/color]

They might not get to make the choice. Or they might not share your
view of VC++.

Brian Gladman

[CBFalconer]

Re: c99 on Microsoft Visual Studio

Eltee wrote:[color=blue]
> Alan Balmer wrote:
>[/color]
.... snip ...[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> You can expect guidance here, but you can't expect people to do
>> all the work for you.[/color]
>
> All the work? If this wasn't funny it'd be tragical. This is
> comp.lang._C_, isn't it? People in here should know something
> about C, shouldn't they? Well, if this whole business wasn't just
> academic they should know about compilers, too. Especially those
> that adhere to the standard. I never realized that listing some
> of those would be such an unthinkable thing to ask.[/color]

Because specific compilers are not the subject of the group. If
you had taken the trouble to lurk for a short time you would have
both known that and have seen various references to compilers. You
have another chance by looking through the references in my sig
below.

--
Some useful references:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt >
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware. com/refxc.html> C-library