Storgae durations

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Storgae durations

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:
>>

>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>>On 16 Aug 2008 at 20:06, Harald van D?k wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:54:07 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>But since you don't actually know whether the platforms you name
>>>>>have C99 implementations available for them, your point lacks force.
>>>>Intel's compiler is available for Windows and Linux, and the other
>>>>three conform to SUSv3. In other words, the platforms all have
>>>>conformin g C99 implementations .
>>>I don't believe for a second that Heathfield wasn't fully aware of
>>>that.
>>>>
>>>He's a proven liar who chooses to spread FUD about the current C
>>>standards for his own reasons.
>>>>
>>He said that C99 wasn't available for IBM mainframes,

>>
>No, I didn't. Learn to read, please.
>>

>
You said that there was no C99 for S390.

No, I did not. Here is the relevant message ID:
<UuOdnVmoccDGsj rVnZ2dnUVZ8uidn Z2d@bt.com>

in which I make no such claim.

Learn to read, please. It would help to stop you from looking such a fool
in the eyes of those who /can/ read.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Ian Collins]

Re: Storgae durations

santosh wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:
>

>s0suk3@gmail.co m wrote:

>>I've been wondering, if C99 has been implemented only by a small
>>number of vendors so far, the reason seeming to be that they're not
>>interested in C anymore, *who* is going to implement C1X?
>>>

>Oh there's plenty of interest in C, but don't forget the majority of C
>is written for embedded platforms that have no use for many C99
>features (_Complex on an 8 bit micro anyone?). I'd wager a decent
>quantity of beer on the percentage of C programmers who have used
><complex.hor <tgmath.hin production code is vanishingly small.

>
Then I wonder why the Committee standardised them in the first place?
>

You're certainly not alone there!

--
Ian Collins.

[Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?=]

Re: Storgae durations

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:12:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

>http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/
>>
><quote>
>Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99) <end quote>
>>
>IBM supports C99 in all its mainline compilers

>
"supports C99" and "conforms to C99" have different meanings.

I'm not so sure of that. "Supports C99" can have different meanings than
"conforms to C99", but they seem to mean the same thing here. In either
case, the "conforms to C99" part is clearer in "a standards-conforming C
compiler", from the same page.

[jacob navia]

Re: Storgae durations

Harald van Dijk wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:12:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:

>>http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/
>>>
>><quote>
>>Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99) <end quote>
>>>
>>IBM supports C99 in all its mainline compilers

>"supports C99" and "conforms to C99" have different meanings.

>
I'm not so sure of that. "Supports C99" can have different meanings than
"conforms to C99", but they seem to mean the same thing here. In either
case, the "conforms to C99" part is clearer in "a standards-conforming C
compiler", from the same page.

Well, this is just playing with words, seeking
legalese to hide the plain fact that R.H. was
wrong, that's all.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Re: Storgae durations

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:
>

[snip]

>
>

>http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/
>>
><quote>
>Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99)
><end quote>
>>
>IBM supports C99 in all its mainline compilers

>
"supports C99" and "conforms to C99" have different meanings.
>

You are just trying to play with words to hide the
fact that you are wrong heathfield.

This white paper of IBM says in:

http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27007322&aid=1

<quote>
IBM compilers strive to maximize the performance of scientific,
technical, and commercial applications on server platforms. Multiple
operating system availability ensures cross-platform portability,
augmented by standards compliance. IBM XL compilers conform with:

IBM XL C compiler conforms with ISO C90 and C99 standards.
[snipped rest of conformace statements]
<end quote>

Happy now?



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Storgae durations

Antoninus Twink wrote:
<snip>

How many people do you know who, when they fire up their C compiler
with its default settings (not carefully picking a hundred different
switches and command line options to make it emulate a 20-year old
standards mode) find that their compiler rejects // comments? Or
rejects mixed definitions and code? Or won't accept long long ints?

Everyone working in C on NonStop, as that Platform provides C89 compiler
only, and without extra switches you don't get _any_ extension _enabled_, so
this compiler is by default conforming (to C89/C90).

To allow for // comments e.g. the switch is -Walow_cplusplus _comments

The clear fact is that C99 is now the default C standard adopted by
most C compilers,

s/most/some very few/

Bye, Jojo

[santosh]

Re: Storgae durations

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

[ ... ]

>The clear fact is that C99 is now the default C standard adopted by
>most C compilers,

>
s/most/some very few/

I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
essentially C89 + some GNU extensions. IME most compiler default to a
non-conforming mode.

[Antoninus Twink]

Re: Storgae durations

On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:

I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
essentially C89 + some GNU extensions.

Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.

[santosh]

Re: Storgae durations

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:

>I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
>essentially C89 + some GNU extensions.

>
Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.

I was under the impression that it was ISO C90 plus some GNU extensions
some of which happen to be identical to some C99 features.

Also gnu89 was implemented before C99 came out so it's merely
coincidence that some GNU extensions happen to have been standardised
by C99.

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

Re: Storgae durations

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Antoninus Twink wrote:
>

>On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:

>>I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
>>essentially C89 + some GNU extensions.

>>
>Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.

>
I was under the impression that it was ISO C90 plus some GNU extensions
some of which happen to be identical to some C99 features.
>
Also gnu89 was implemented before C99 came out so it's merely
coincidence that some GNU extensions happen to have been standardised
by C99.

Coincidence or the desire to standardize some usefull and common features?

Yours,

--
Jean-Marc

[santosh]

Re: Storgae durations

Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote:

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:
>

>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>

>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:
>>>I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
>>>essentiall y C89 + some GNU extensions.
>>>
>>Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.

>>
>I was under the impression that it was ISO C90 plus some GNU
>extensions some of which happen to be identical to some C99 features.
>>
>Also gnu89 was implemented before C99 came out so it's merely
>coincidence that some GNU extensions happen to have been standardised
>by C99.

>
Coincidence or the desire to standardize some usefull and common
features?

It is that too, but since GCC representatives were not among the
participants of the C99 standardisation committee(?), any similarities
must be coincidence.

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

Re: Storgae durations

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote:
>

>santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:
>>

>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>>
>>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:
>>>>I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
>>>>essential ly C89 + some GNU extensions.
>>>>
>>>Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.
>>>
>>I was under the impression that it was ISO C90 plus some GNU
>>extensions some of which happen to be identical to some C99 features.
>>>
>>Also gnu89 was implemented before C99 came out so it's merely
>>coincidence that some GNU extensions happen to have been standardised
>>by C99.

>>
>Coincidence or the desire to standardize some usefull and common
>features?

>
It is that too, but since GCC representatives were not among the
participants of the C99 standardisation committee(?), any similarities
must be coincidence.

I don't follow the reasonning leading to the "MUST". I can think of
several plausible ways for the absence of coincidence (gcc copied the
extension from another compiler which inspired the comittee, another
compiler which inspired the comittee copied the extension from gcc and
someone on the comittee but not working on gcc was inspired by an
extension).

--
Jean-Marc

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Storgae durations

santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:

Antoninus Twink wrote:
>

>On 17 Aug 2008 at 11:03, santosh wrote:

>>I also note that the default C dialect for gcc is "gnu89" which is
>>essentially C89 + some GNU extensions.

>>
>Actually it's C89 + some C99 features + some GNU extensions.

>
I was under the impression that it was ISO C90 plus some GNU extensions
some of which happen to be identical to some C99 features.

That is taking nit-picking to an extraordinary level. Would you say
the same if all GNU extensions had become C99 features, and all C99
features had happened to be extensions in gcc? You would then have to
say the gcc only supports C90 + GNU extensions despite that being
exactly equal to C99.

Also gnu89 was implemented before C99 came out so it's merely
coincidence that some GNU extensions happen to have been standardised
by C99.

It is hardly a coincidence.

--
Ben.

[Malcolm McLean]

Re: Storgae durations


"Antoninus Twink" <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote in message

This whole "my topicality house is liberty hall, it's just these other
nasty people who want to restrict it" shtick is wearing a bit thin now
Heathfield. Your behavior in this thread exposes it as a blatant lie.
>

Personally I'd like a newgroup that discusses portable C programming, MPI,
Fortran 77, protein folding algorithms, little video games under Windows and
Basic interpreters. Oh and the atheism / Christianity debate. Those happen
to be my main interests.
Unfortunately there are only a very few people in the world who will have an
identical list. So we need to compromise. Which means not, obviously,
discussing atheism on comp.lang.c. But it also means not insisting on a
personal intepretation of where the bounds of "C programming" end and
"Windows programming" begins.

--
Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Storgae durations

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>jacob navia said:
>>

[snip]

>>
>>

>>http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awdtools/czvm/
>>>
>><quote>
>>Supports the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 international standard (C99)
>><end quote>
>>>
>>IBM supports C99 in all its mainline compilers

>>
>"supports C99" and "conforms to C99" have different meanings.
>>

>
You are just trying to play with words to hide the
fact that you are wrong heathfield.

When you have learned to read, we might take up this conversation again.
Until then, I see little point.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999