c99
Denis
I see C99 being quoted alot around here. I always thought of it as a very
new standard, which was not supported by major compiler vendors.
is this true?
denis
Ben Pfaff
Yes. There are several reasons why it is being quoted around
here so much. The ones that come to mind immediately are:
* It's cheaply available from ANSI in a nicer form than
the C89 standard.
* It's important to know how the new standard works so
that programs compatible with it can be written in C89.
* It's something new and exciting, which doesn't come up
in C very often.
--
"I should killfile you where you stand, worthless human." --Kaz
Dann Corbit
news:8mn8ji$6si9d$1...@ID-44494.news.cis.dfn.de...
> Hello,
>
> I see C99 being quoted alot around here. I always thought of it as a very
> new standard, which was not supported by major compiler vendors.
>
> is this true?
Of course. Look at the date.
All the major compiler vendors will be adding support ASAP (if they want to
remain in business). To a large degree, the new stuff in C99 is their
suggestions and ideas (not to mention the good ideas that were quashed).
A good part of C99 is already supported by major compilers and even free
ones like GCC (which might be the most compliant of all).
--
C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
"The C-FAQ Book" ISBN 0-201-84519-9
C.A.P. Newsgroup http://www.dejanews.com/~c_a_p
C.A.P. FAQ: ftp://38.168.214.175/pub/Chess%20Analysis%20Project%20FAQ.htm
Dan Pop
>All the major compiler vendors will be adding support ASAP (if they want to
>remain in business).
I'm afraid you're too optimistic. I don't see much commercial pressure
on the compiler vendors to provide a C99 implementation anytime soon.
Anybody heard any official announcement from any of them?
>A good part of C99 is already supported by major compilers and even free
>ones like GCC (which might be the most compliant of all).
Especially if combined with glibc. But gcc + glibc still have a long way
to go to achieve C99 compliance.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: Dan...@cern.ch
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
Jack Klein
<dco...@solutionsiq.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:
> "Denis" <kie...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:8mn8ji$6si9d$1...@ID-44494.news.cis.dfn.de...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I see C99 being quoted alot around here. I always thought of it as a very
> > new standard, which was not supported by major compiler vendors.
> >
> > is this true?
>
> Of course. Look at the date.
>
> All the major compiler vendors will be adding support ASAP (if they want to
> remain in business). To a large degree, the new stuff in C99 is their
> suggestions and ideas (not to mention the good ideas that were quashed).
>
> A good part of C99 is already supported by major compilers and even free
> ones like GCC (which might be the most compliant of all).
Gee, Dann, I really wish that were true...
Do a search of Microsoft's entire web site. I turned up two hits for
the phrase "C99". They were in two articles by a "columnist" type
writer, passing references.
I asked Borland who prides themselves on their C++ 98 conformance,
through the official procedure on their web site, and have yet to
receive an answer. The "C99" keyword produces no hits at all in their
search engine.
MetroWerks, unlike the others above, actually proclaims conformance to
"ANSI C and C++" instead of just "ANSI C++ conformance". There were
no hits for "C99". But at least I got a reply from them! It amounted
to the fact that they already included a large fraction of the new
library functions, and that was most of C99 wasn't it? No specific
mention of plans or dates for the rest of the library or any effort at
all at the language changes.
gcc might well be the most compliant C99 implementation available
today, and might very well be the first with acceptable compliance,
however one decides to define that. But the last I heard there were
quite a few parts of C99 undone.
Jack Klein
--
Home: http://jackklein.home.att.net
Denis
> today, and might very well be the first with acceptable compliance,
> however one decides to define that. But the last I heard there were
> quite a few parts of C99 undone.
Actually, after all this discussion I went looking on gcc.gnu.org and here
is the
page that they have, which deals with c99 :
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
its a table, so i would not want to paste in here since it'd come out all
nasty-looking anyway.
denis
ps. it looks like they still have some things to be done. in fact many
things.
Ioannis Vranos
news:danpop.9...@news.cern.ch...
> on the compiler vendors to provide a C99 implementation anytime soon.
>
> Anybody heard any official announcement from any of them?
>
> >ones like GCC (which might be the most compliant of all).
>
> to go to achieve C99 compliance.
I don't know, if anybody agrees with me, but i think that things so simple
as k&r 3d edition would help a lot at c99 implementation in commercial
compilers. If they will not write the book, i think that commercial
compilers (c++) will care to maintain compatibility with ansi c++ and will
not care too much about c99. But for only C compilers (is there any
commercial c compiler today?) they will probably adapt c99.
Ioannis
Ben Pfaff
> I don't know, if anybody agrees with me, but i think that things so simple
> as k&r 3d edition would help a lot at c99 implementation in commercial
> compilers.
They (or at least dmr) have already stated in c.l.c that there
are no plans for a K&R3.
--
"What is appropriate for the master is not appropriate for the novice.
You must understand the Tao before transcending structure."
--The Tao of Programming
Ioannis Vranos
news:87zomoy...@pfaffben.user.msu.edu...
> They (or at least dmr) have already stated in c.l.c that there
> are no plans for a K&R3.
And what did you all say? You had to insist, to persuade the Masters that
they are not right, and they must write the book.
Ioannis
Ben Pfaff
It is your opinion that they are not right. We aren't convinced
that they are wrong.
--
"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six
feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton
Thomas M. Sommers
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 14:38:17 -0700, "Dann Corbit"
> <dco...@solutionsiq.com> wrote in comp.lang.c:
>
> > "Denis" <kie...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > news:8mn8ji$6si9d$1...@ID-44494.news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I see C99 being quoted alot around here. I always thought of it as a very
> > > new standard, which was not supported by major compiler vendors.
> > >
> > > is this true?
> >
> > Of course. Look at the date.
> >
> > All the major compiler vendors will be adding support ASAP (if they want to
> > remain in business). To a large degree, the new stuff in C99 is their
> > suggestions and ideas (not to mention the good ideas that were quashed).
> >
> > ones like GCC (which might be the most compliant of all).
>
>
> Do a search of Microsoft's entire web site. I turned up two hits for
> the phrase "C99". They were in two articles by a "columnist" type
> writer, passing references.
>
> I asked Borland who prides themselves on their C++ 98 conformance,
> through the official procedure on their web site, and have yet to
> receive an answer. The "C99" keyword produces no hits at all in their
> search engine.
>
> MetroWerks, unlike the others above, actually proclaims conformance to
> "ANSI C and C++" instead of just "ANSI C++ conformance". There were
> no hits for "C99". But at least I got a reply from them! It amounted
Maybe they just don't call it "C99".