what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence point
in our source code?
in our source code?
-
-
Re: sequence point
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites:n1256.pdf is more current (though I don't know of any differencesJrdman wrote:>>what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence point
>in our source code?
They are summarised in Annex C of the standard. Dig out a copy of
n1124.pdf and have a look.
involving sequence points).
(n1336.pdf, at the obvious URL, includes a re-working of sequence
points, but it's not an official document, just a very early draft of
the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
Corrigenda.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
-
Re: sequence point
Keith Thompson wrote:
For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites:>>Jrdman wrote:>>>>what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence
>>point in our source code?
>They are summarised in Annex C of the standard. Dig out a copy of
>n1124.pdf and have a look.
n1256.pdf is more current (though I don't know of any differences
involving sequence points).
>
>
(n1336.pdf, at the obvious URL, includes a re-working of sequence
points, but it's not an official document, just a very early draft of
the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
Corrigenda.)
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
santosh wrote:n1124.pdf is the C99 standard plus the first two Technical Corrigenda, so IKeith Thompson wrote:
>>>Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites:>>>>Jrdman wrote:
>>>what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence
>>>point in our source code?
>>>
>>They are summarised in Annex C of the standard. Dig out a copy of
>>n1124.pdf and have a look.
>n1256.pdf is more current (though I don't know of any differences
>involving sequence points).
>>
>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1256.pdf
>>
>(n1336.pdf, at the obvious URL, includes a re-working of sequence
>points, but it's not an official document, just a very early draft of
>the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
>includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
>Corrigenda.)
For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?
can't see how it would be more or less official than n1256.pdf.
n869.pdf is the C99 draft, between it and n1124.pdf there seems to be a gap,
it seems neither C99 nor C99+TC1 has ever been published. At least not been
made publicly available at no costs.
Bye, Jojo
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
I asked this question because the WG14 website still lists n1124.pdf assantosh wrote:>>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites:
>>>Jrdman wrote:
>>>>what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence
>>>>point in our source code?
>>>>
>>>They are summarised in Annex C of the standard. Dig out a copy of
>>>n1124.pdf and have a look.
>>>
>>n1256.pdf is more current (though I don't know of any differences
>>involving sequence points).
>>>
>>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1256.pdf
>>>
>>(n1336.pdf, at the obvious URL, includes a re-working of sequence
>>points, but it's not an official document, just a very early draft
>>of
>>the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
>>includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
>>Corrigenda. )
>For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?
n1124.pdf is the C99 standard plus the first two Technical Corrigenda,
so I can't see how it would be more or less official than n1256.pdf.
>
n869.pdf is the C99 draft, between it and n1124.pdf there seems to be
a gap, it seems neither C99 nor C99+TC1 has ever been published. At
least not been made publicly available at no costs.
the latest draft of the C Standard, not n1256.pdf. In fact, there is no
mention of n1256.pdf in any of the webpages of WG14's site. One has to
directly get it from the "docs" subdirectory.
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
santosh wrote:Ah, OK then, so as per the WG14 site it then seems that indeed n1124.pdf isJoachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>santosh wrote:>>>>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites:
>>>>Jrdman wrote:
>>>>>what's a sequence point and how to know the position of sequence
>>>>>point in our source code?
>>>>>
>>>>They are summarised in Annex C of the standard. Dig out a copy of
>>>>n1124.pdf and have a look.
>>>>
>>>n1256.pdf is more current (though I don't know of any differences
>>>involving sequence points).
>>>>
>>>http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1256.pdf
>>>>
>>>(n1336.pdf , at the obvious URL, includes a re-working of sequence
>>>points, but it's not an official document, just a very early draft
>>>of
>>>the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
>>>includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
>>>Corrigenda .)
>>>
>>For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?
>n1124.pdf is the C99 standard plus the first two Technical
>Corrigenda, so I can't see how it would be more or less official
>than n1256.pdf.
>>
>n869.pdf is the C99 draft, between it and n1124.pdf there seems to be
>a gap, it seems neither C99 nor C99+TC1 has ever been published. At
>least not been made publicly available at no costs.
I asked this question because the WG14 website still lists n1124.pdf
as the latest draft of the C Standard, not n1256.pdf. In fact, there
is no mention of n1256.pdf in any of the webpages of WG14's site. One
has to directly get it from the "docs" subdirectory.
more official. But then again it's a draft only, so can't be official, can
it?
Or the website is just outdated?
Bye, Jojo
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
Joachim Schmitz wrote:<snip>santosh wrote:>Joachim Schmitz wrote:>>santosh wrote:
I would say the latter, since the publishing of n1256.pdf was announced>>>>>>For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?
>>>
>>n1124.pdf is the C99 standard plus the first two Technical
>>Corrigenda, so I can't see how it would be more or less official
>>than n1256.pdf.
>>>
>>n869.pdf is the C99 draft, between it and n1124.pdf there seems to
>>be a gap, it seems neither C99 nor C99+TC1 has ever been published.
>>At least not been made publicly available at no costs.
>I asked this question because the WG14 website still lists n1124.pdf
>as the latest draft of the C Standard, not n1256.pdf. In fact, there
>is no mention of n1256.pdf in any of the webpages of WG14's site. One
>has to directly get it from the "docs" subdirectory.
Ah, OK then, so as per the WG14 site it then seems that indeed
n1124.pdf is more official. But then again it's a draft only, so can't
be official, can it?
Or the website is just outdated?
in comp.std.c by a Committee member. Now of course n1336.pdf supercedes
n1256.pdf.
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
Joachim Schmitz wrote:....santosh wrote:>Keith Thompson wrote:n1256.pdf isn't more official than n1124.pdf, it's just more up-to-date,>>For that matter is n1124.pdf any *more* official than n1256.pdf?>>the next standard. n1256 isn't really official either, but it
>>includes the official C99 standard plus the three Technical
>>Corrigenda. )
n1124.pdf is the C99 standard plus the first two Technical Corrigenda, so I
can't see how it would be more or less official than n1256.pdf.
because it also incorporates TC3, which has since been officially approved.
Comment
-
Re: sequence point
santosh <santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrites:[...]Joachim Schmitz wrote:And I don't think an announcement on the website necessarily makes any>>Ah, OK then, so as per the WG14 site it then seems that indeed
>n1124.pdf is more official. But then again it's a draft only, so can't
>be official, can it?
>Or the website is just outdated?
I would say the latter, since the publishing of n1256.pdf was announced
in comp.std.c by a Committee member. Now of course n1336.pdf supercedes
n1256.pdf.
document "official".
n1256.pdf incorporates information from the ISO C99 standard plus the
three Technical Corrigenda, all of which are official ISO documents.
So if you want absolutely official information (say, if you're writing
a contract that requires C99 conformance), you'd want to refer to
those four individual documents, rather than to n1256, which is a
merged version produced by one of the committee members and made
available for convenience.
I don't think n1336 supersedes n1256. Any differences between n1256
and n1336 are *proposed* changes for the C1X standard. I don't think
any of the changes are semantically significant (so far they're
intended to be different wordings for the same ideas), but if they
were, a conforming C99 compiler would be required to follow n1256, not
n1336. There is no C1X standard yet.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Comment
Comment