lastest C standard version
Matt
are many terms I have heard, including C98, C99, C9X. Or should we
call ANSI/ISO C?
Please advise. Thanks!!
Emmanuel Delahaye
It's 'C99'. The full name is 'ISO/IEC 9899:1999'
--
Emmanuel
Dan Pop
>Matt a formulé la demande :
>> I want to know what is the latest C standard version? Is it C99? There
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> are many terms I have heard, including C98, C99, C9X. Or should we
>> call ANSI/ISO C?
>>
>> Please advise. Thanks!!
>
>It's 'C99'. The full name is 'ISO/IEC 9899:1999'
It's actually C99 with TC1 corrections applied, so the full name should
be something like ISO/IEC 9899:1999 + ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
(the second part being the ref no of TC1).
The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Dan...@ifh.de
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
> no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.
FYI, TC2 has been submitted for approval and we're going to do our best
to convince the powers that be to let us "print" a new edition of the
Standard for it rather than just publishing a separate TC document.
-Larry Jones
From now on, I'm devoting myself to the cultivation of
interpersonal relationships. -- Calvin
Dan Pop
>Dan Pop <Dan...@cern.ch> wrote:
>>
>> The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
>> no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.
>
>FYI, TC2 has been submitted for approval and we're going to do our best
>to convince the powers that be to let us "print" a new edition of the
>Standard for it rather than just publishing a separate TC document.
What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
document or something in-between?
Mabden
news:cdlvop$rcm$1...@sunnews.cern.ch...
> What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
> and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
> document or something in-between?
Oh... no... Dan is going to get a NEW standards document...?
God help us all!
--
Mabden
Al Grant
> It's actually C99 with TC1 corrections applied, so the full name should
> be something like ISO/IEC 9899:1999 + ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
> (the second part being the ref no of TC1).
>
> The version published by John Wiley & Sons includes TC1, but there is
> no way to merge the two PDFs you can get from ISO or ANSI.
The version published by Wiley that we have is BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
i.e. the BSI adoption. The book is published and printed in the UK.
Are there different versions of the book in other territories?
Thomas L.
BTW, is there a "steering commitee" or a group somewhere in the world
interested in some sort of "requested features" or "suggestions" for
the C language? How does this language evolves and who are the ideas'
initiators. Is it WG14?
Dan Pop
Probably not, but the published version does include TC1. From
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470845732.html
The C Standard: Incorporating Technical Corrigendum 1
British Standards Institute
ISBN: 0-470-84573-2
Hardcover
558 pages
September 2003
US $65.00
The page count is probably wrong, because it doesn't include the about
200 pages of the Rationale.
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
> and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
> document or something in-between?
I honestly don't know. Given that full price for the PDF is only $18,
it hardly makes much difference in that case.
-Larry Jones
I don't need to do a better job. I need better P.R. on the job I DO.
-- Calvin
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> BTW, is there a "steering commitee" or a group somewhere in the world
> interested in some sort of "requested features" or "suggestions" for
> the C language? How does this language evolves and who are the ideas'
> initiators. Is it WG14?
Yes, although we're usually not particularly interested in requested
features or suggestions without a detailed and carefully thought out
proposal, preferably with a "champion" who's willing to attend committee
meetings, present the proposal, solicit feedback, etc. We're also not
particularly interested in suggestions unless we're actively working on
revising the standard, which we're not at the moment.
-Larry Jones
I hate being good. -- Calvin
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> The version published by Wiley that we have is BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
> i.e. the BSI adoption. The book is published and printed in the UK.
> Are there different versions of the book in other territories?
Not so far as I know. The book contains ISO/IEC 9899:1999 as modified
by the corrections in ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001. Whether that really
corresponds to BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 or not I cannot say -- if they
really have applied the corrections, they probably should have changed
the date as well.
-Larry Jones
Good gravy, whose side are you on?! -- Calvin
Douglas A. Gwyn
Two more points. First, be sure your suggestion is
for something that is significantly useful. There
was a long list of features considered but not
adopted for the 1989 C standard, and it would be
wise to review those before bringing up the same
old proposals all over again. Your rationale for
the inclusion of a new feature should include one
or more of: (a) it provides something that is
needed from time to time which is impractical to
code in Standard C as it exists; (b) it provides a
standard specification for some portable function
that many programmers have independently reinvented;
(c) it facilitates some common operation which is
otherwise tedious to code; (d) it permits more
extensive optimization of generated code; (e) it
provides better support for some other important
standard; (f) it permits better compile-time checks.
Second, it helps us evaluate the ramifications of
making a change if there is at least one existing
implementation with a significant number of users.
You might add the feature to LCC or GCC, perhaps.
Thomas L.
Allright,
I can imagine there has been some incredible amount of non-carefully
thought suggestions for C and I am not prepared to go through all the
historical of C standards to find a carefully-thought formulation.
BTW, Larry, you say "We"... who are "we"?
Something on the side:
I am in the scientific programming community and i have to deal with a
lot of fortran (or at least people wondering why don't I use fortran).
The fortran language has known quite a lot of these new standards:
f90, f95, now f2003... Do you have an idea (apart from "fortran was
crap right at the beggining so they have to redo everything") why the
development cycle of C and fortran seems so different?
That's no criticism, I am just wondering if somebody has a clue?
Thomas
Mabden
news:TpmdndoXxME...@comcast.com...
> lawrenc...@ugsplm.com wrote:
> > In comp.lang.c Thomas L. <thomas....@jrc.it> wrote:
> >>BTW, is there a "steering commitee" or a group somewhere in the world
> >>interested in some sort of "requested features" or "suggestions" for
> >>the C language? How does this language evolves and who are the ideas'
> >>initiators. Is it WG14?
>
> for something that is significantly useful.
I believe the dwim() function would be a useful addition to the C standard
language.
This function would add "Do What I Mean" functionality, which is
occasionally missing from the C standard library.
--
Mabden
Charles Sanders
"Thomas L." wrote:
> The fortran language has known quite a lot of these new standards:
> f90, f95, now f2003... Do you have an idea (apart from "fortran was
> crap right at the beggining so they have to redo everything") why the
> development cycle of C and fortran seems so different?
>
> That's no criticism, I am just wondering if somebody has a clue?
> Thomas
Are they that different ?
Fortran went through several non-standard versions in the 1950's
and early 1960's. The standards I know about are, if memory
serves me correctly
1966
1977 - 11 years, significant changes
1990 - 13 years, major changes
1995 - 5 years, but fairly minor tweaks
2003 - 8 years, 13 since last major change
While for C, I think it was (I am sure someone will correct my
errors)
1989
1995 - 6 years, but fairly minor tweaks
1999 - 4 years, 10 since last major change
so the cycle does not seem that different to me. If anything the
Fortran standard seems to be changing more slowly.
Charles
Charles
Irrwahn Grausewitz
Actually, they changed it to "ISO/IEC 9899:TC1". Alas, I wasn't aware
of that fact until someone in c.s.c pointed it out some time ago.
It's not /that/ easy to spot the one and only place it's mentioned in
the whole book, and finding it is left as an exercise to the reader.
:-)
Regards
--
Irrwahn Grausewitz (irrw...@freenet.de)
welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html
those who know me have no need of my name
in comp.lang.c i read:
>In comp.std.c Dan Pop <Dan...@cern.ch> wrote:
>> What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
>> and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
>> document or something in-between?
>
>I honestly don't know. Given that full price for the PDF is only $18,
>it hardly makes much difference in that case.
this is not the case everywhere, e.g., the iso (now) sells the pdf for the
same price as the printed (chf 340).
--
a signature
Francois Grieu
> What does this imply for the current owners of C99 copies (both printed
> and PDF)? Free upgrades, having to pay again the full price of the
> document or something in-between?
At least, the errata is free. A simple way to get it is
<http://ftp2.ansi.org/download/free_download.asp?document=ISO%2FIEC+9899%2FCor1%3A2001>
I love <http://webstore.ansi.org>
which seems to sell 80% of the standards that I need for $18 each,
and makes it easy to get erratas.
François Grieu
Thomas L.
header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
what is this document and is it an illegal copy of the final version
of the last standard? Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
In that case, what is the most up-to-date document : the WG14 C99
Rationale or the pdf I found?
Thanks for help
Thomas
Keith Thompson
> I found on the web (don't remember where...) a pdf document whose
> header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
> what is this document and is it an illegal copy of the final version
> of the last standard? Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
That's the same page header I see on my legal copy of the C99
standard. If you found it on the web, it's probably an illegal copy.
> In that case, what is the most up-to-date document : the WG14 C99
> Rationale or the pdf I found?
The Rationale is a separate document, not covered by the license
restrictions covering the standard.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Antoine Leca
> I found on the web (don't remember where...) a pdf document whose
> header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
> Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
The "(E)" there means it is the English version of a document. A French
version would have a (F) in that place.
It has nothing to do with the status of a document (i.e., both an official
standard and a committee draft would have a similar marking.)
Hope it helps,
Antoine
Irrwahn Grausewitz
>En 7dbd3a4.04072...@posting.google.com, Thomas L. va escriure:
>> I found on the web (don't remember where...) a pdf document whose
>> header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
>> ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
><...>
>> Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
>
>The "(E)" there means it is the English version of a document. A French
Funny, I could've sworn the "(E)" stands for "electronic", since it
only appears in the electronic (.pdf) version of the standard.
Douglas A. Gwyn
> Funny, I could've sworn the "(E)" stands for "electronic",
No, it does mean English.
Thomas L.
> "Antoine Leca" <ro...@localhost.gov> wrote:
> >En 7dbd3a4.04072...@posting.google.com, Thomas L. va escriure:
> >> I found on the web (don't remember where...) a pdf document whose
> >> header (on each of the 500+ pages) says |left: (c)ISO/IEC right:
> >> ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)|
> <...>
> >> Or the (E) means a prior-to-release version?
> >
> >The "(E)" there means it is the English version of a document. A French
> >version would have a (F) in that place. [...]
>
> Funny, I could've sworn the "(E)" stands for "electronic", since it
> only appears in the electronic (.pdf) version of the standard.
>
> Regards
In the end, I have no way of saying if it is a final (although in
English AND Electronic) version of the ISO/IEC 9899:1999 standard. It
has 538 pages.
Thanks anyway.
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> Funny, I could've sworn the "(E)" stands for "electronic", since it
> only appears in the electronic (.pdf) version of the standard.
You're wrong on both counts: it stands for English and it appears in the
paper version of the standard, too.
-Larry Jones
They say winning isn't everything, and I've decided
to take their word for it. -- Calvin
Keith Thompson
My (legal) PDF copy of the C99 standard is 1411606 bytes; the md5sum
is ff8dc9d8f109111a91a70cc29fb16168.
Paul Eggert
> My (legal) PDF copy of the C99 standard is 1411606 bytes; the md5sum
> is ff8dc9d8f109111a91a70cc29fb16168.
That's odd. My authorized copy is 1844334 bytes long. Here is the
md5sum and file name.
0b5cc55c3239c3d4e0c71cba784b2ba5 ISO_IEC_9899;1999(E)-Character_PDF_document.pdf
I got my copy from the ISO. Acrobat Reader gives the following
properties for this file (which I had to transcribe by hand, sigh):
Title: ISO/IEC 9899:1999
Subject: Programming Languages - C
Author: JTC 1/SC 22/WG 14
Binding: Left Edge
Producer: Acrobat Distiller Command 3.0 for HP-UX A.09.01 and later (HPPA)
Created: Thu Apr 22 17:51:25 1999
Modified: Tue Nov 30 16:32:20 1999
File Size: (Bytes): 1844334
Security: None
PDF Version: 1.2 (Acrobat 3.x)
Page SIze: 8.3 in x 11.7 in
Number of Pages: 554
Tagged PDF: No
Optimized: Yes
I hope the only real difference is that my copy is for A4 paper, and
probably your copy is for US letter. Still, that difference in size
is worrisome. (Are you sure your copy is complete? :-)
Keith Thompson
My copy is also A4 (I've never printed it, so that's not a problem,
even though A4 paper is almost nonexistent around here). I got it
from ANSI; there's some ANSI boilerplate text on the first page, which
I presume your copy doesn't have.
The properties on mine are almost identical, except for:
Modified: 2000-07-17 14:07:57
File Size: 1.35 MB (1,411,606 Bytes)
Security: 40-bit RC4 (Acrobat 3.x, 4.x)
PDF Version: 1.3 (Acrobat 4.x)
Page Size: 8.26 in x 11.69 in
The number of pages is the same. I'm using Acrobat Reader 5.0 under
Windows XP.
I'm not sure what the 40-bit RC4 is about. I never asks me for a
password when I open the file. (I may have had to do something when I
first downloaded it; it's been a long time, and I've forgotten the
details.)
Does your copy have bookmarks?
Jonathan Leffler
Aye, well, they've been busy. My (legitimate) copy has a different
modification time (same date as Keith, but off a few hours), a
different size, and does have bookmarks.
Size: 1412026
MD5 Checksum: bbba3981291c7000b1f6ffc8030d66a1
Modified: 7/17/2000 11:07:57 AM
(Precisely three hours difference? I'm on US/Pacific time; is Keith
on US/Eastern time?) But still a different size...weird!
Clearly, the PDF files change a lot more than anyone would have
expected. In fact, I'm left wondering if each separate copy
downloaded isn't unique somehow... No concrete evidence - just that
everyone seems to have a different files.
--
Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jlef...@earthlink.net, jlef...@us.ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/
Paul Eggert
> Does your copy have bookmarks?
Yes.
Possibly the difference in size is because ANSI stripped out the
embedded fonts -- they may not have been as worried or careful about
the exact appearance of the standard on your screen.
I'm not surprised that each PDF copy would differ: this is standard
practice these days, as publishers put in watermarks. It does raise
the issue about how one knows that one's copy is valid, but I guess
the standards organizations don't care all that much about that issue.
But hundreds of kilobytes' worth of differences? Wow.
> I'm not sure what the 40-bit RC4 is about. I never asks me for a
> password when I open the file.
The password may be protecting just some functions: for example,
it could be preventing you from printing or selecting text.
My copy from ISO has no encryption and no restrictions imposed by
Acrobat Reader. For example, I can select the entire PDF document and
copy the result into an Emacs temporary text buffer for viewing; this
consumes 985607 bytes in the Emacs buffer.
> there's some ANSI boilerplate text on the first page, which
> I presume your copy doesn't have.
Correct. My page 1 looks like this:
INTERNATIONAL ISO/IEC
STANDARD 9899
Second edition
1999-12-01
=============================================
Programming languages --- C
Langages de programmation --- C
=============================================
ISO IEC Reference number
logo logo ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)
(C) ISO/IEC 1999
Page 2 has a more-detailed copyright notice at the bottom of the page,
and has the ISO's Geneva address and says "Printed in Switzerland".
Above that it has a PDF disclaimer that says it may contain embedded
typefaces that are licensed from Adobe and 3 lines of legal mumbo
jumbo that say I have to obey Adobe's font licenses and it's not ISO's
fault if I don't. (Which is fine with me.)
Brian Inglis
My latest ANSI copy contains all the above and the embedded fonts,
security only prevents modification with a master password, and the
following properties between Binding and Page Size:
Creator: Not Available
Producer: PDF PT 2.33 (pdf-tools.com)
Modified: 2004-03-15 21:11:03
File Size: 1.38 MB (1,443,802 Bytes)
Security: 128-bit RC4 (Acrobat 5.0)
PDF Version: 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x)
plus a watermark in the bottom margin of each page:
"Licensed to Systematic Software/Brian W. Inglis
ANSI Store order #X124089 Downloaded: 3/15/2004 9:11:01 PM ET
Single user license only. Copying and networking prohibited."
Perhaps the independent commercial PDF Tools products provide better
encryption and compression than Acrobat Distiller?
--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
Paul Eggert
> Perhaps the independent commercial PDF Tools products provide better
> encryption and compression than Acrobat Distiller?
Compression sounds plausible, but I'd expect to see a difference more
with images, not a text document, because images can be tweaked more
for better compression/worse quality. So I'm still surprised to see
the size differences.
So far we have:
bytes modified pub. notes
1,844,334 1999-11-30 ISO (produced by Acrobat Distiller Command 3.0)
1,411,606 2000-07-17 ANSI (Keith Thompson's, produced by Acrobat Distiller?)
1,412,026 2000-07-17 ANSI (Jonathan Leffler's copy, unknown producer)
1,443,802 2004-03-15 ANSI (Brian Inglis's copy, produced by PDF PT)
Both ISO copies are the same (that's a relief! it makes it quite
implausible that my ISO copy is corrupted), but the ANSI copies all
differ, and they are quite a bit shorter than the ISO copy.
It still looks like the ANSI PDF version left something out, but what?
They have the same number of pages....
Perhaps ISO disabled some forms of compression? For example, they may
not have used LZW compression because of the Unisys patent. Is there
an easy way to determine what forms of compression were actually used
in a PDF file?
Marcel van Kervinck
> My (legal) PDF copy of the C99 standard is 1411606 bytes; the md5sum
> is ff8dc9d8f109111a91a70cc29fb16168.
Same here:
MD5 (ANSI+ISO+IEC+9899-1999.pdf) = ff8dc9d8f109111a91a70cc29fb16168
Which makes me confident there is no
watermark in the document.
Marcel
-- _ _
_| |_|_|
|_ |_ mar...@bitpit.net
|_| Marcel van Kervinck
David Hopwood
> At Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:10:50 GMT, Brian Inglis <Brian....@SystematicSw.Invalid> writes:
>
>>Perhaps the independent commercial PDF Tools products provide better
>>encryption and compression than Acrobat Distiller?
No, my ANSI copy is also produced by Acrobat Distiller Command 3.0.
> Compression sounds plausible, but I'd expect to see a difference more
> with images, not a text document, because images can be tweaked more
> for better compression/worse quality. So I'm still surprised to see
> the size differences.
>
> So far we have:
>
bytes modified downloaded pub. notes
1,844,334 1999-11-30 ? ISO produced by Acrobat Distiller Command 3.0
1,411,606 2000-07-17 ? ANSI Keith Thompson's, Acrobat Distiller?
1,412,026 2000-07-17 ? ANSI Jonathan Leffler's, unknown producer
1,443,802 2004-03-15 ? ANSI Brian Inglis's, produced by PDF PT
1,410,200 2002-06-20 2002-12-28 ANSI David Hopwood's, Distiller Cmd 3.0 554pp
> Both ISO copies are the same (that's a relief! it makes it quite
> implausible that my ISO copy is corrupted), but the ANSI copies all
> differ, and they are quite a bit shorter than the ISO copy.
>
> It still looks like the ANSI PDF version left something out, but what?
Maybe embedded fonts?
> They have the same number of pages....
>
> Perhaps ISO disabled some forms of compression? For example, they may
> not have used LZW compression because of the Unisys patent. Is there
> an easy way to determine what forms of compression were actually used
> in a PDF file?
Yes, open the file in a text editor that doesn't mind binary data (not
notepad) and scroll down to the first non-text section. Before it will
be something like:
<< /S 11004 /O 14737 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 5117 0 R >>
/FlateDecode means DEFLATE compression. Also check the PDF version (first
line of the file). Mine is %PDF-1.4; later versions may produce shorter
files.
David Hopwood <david.nosp...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Paul Eggert
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> Is therean easy way to determine what forms of compression were
>> actually used in a PDF file?
>
> Yes, open the file in a text editor that doesn't mind binary data (not
> notepad) and scroll down to the first non-text section. Before it will
> be something like:
>
> << /S 11004 /O 14737 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 5117 0 R >>
My (ISO) copy says this:
<< /S 10997 /O 14719 /Filter /FlateDecode /Length 5107 0 R >>
which apparently is the same compression technology as yours.
> Also check the PDF version (first line of the file). Mine is
> %PDF-1.4; later versions may produce shorter files.
My copy says %PDF-1.2. So that might explain things. But is it
reasonable that 1.4 produces files that are so much shorter, even if
the same compression is used?
David Holland
> Two more points. First, be sure your suggestion is
> for something that is significantly useful. There
> was a long list of features considered but not
> adopted for the 1989 C standard, and it would be
> wise to review those before bringing up the same
> old proposals all over again.
Is this material posted anywhere?
--
- David A. Holland
(the address above works if unscrambled, but is not checked often)
Douglas A. Gwyn
> On 2004-07-23, Douglas A. Gwyn <DAG...@null.net> wrote:
> > Two more points. First, be sure your suggestion is
> > for something that is significantly useful. There
> > was a long list of features considered but not
> > adopted for the 1989 C standard, and it would be
> > wise to review those before bringing up the same
> > old proposals all over again.
> Is this material posted anywhere?
I think it was printed near the front of the 1989 C standard.
lawrenc...@ugsplm.com
>
> I think it was printed near the front of the 1989 C standard.
I thought it was in the Rationale, but it doesn't seem to be in either
of those places.
-Larry Jones
When you're as far ahead of the class as I am, it doesn't take much time.
-- Calvin
Douglas A. Gwyn
> ... it doesn't seem to be in either of those places.
In that case, it was probably in the forward to the
document responding to public comment on the (first)
proposed C standard. I'll try to find it in my
archives and format it into plain text to post here.
Douglas A. Gwyn
> In that case, it was probably in the forward to the
> document responding to public comment on the (first)
> proposed C standard. I'll try to find it in my
> archives and format it into plain text to post here.
Hmm, turns out some of those files were lost in a system
backup/restore snafu some time ago.
David Holland
Ah well. Thanks for looking.
--
- David A. Holland
(the address in the header works if unscrambled, but is not often checked)