Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #29617
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c, comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations |
| Date | 2020-05-06 13:22 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87pnbgzudz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <r8upn1$89t$1@reader2.panix.com> <r8urd0$7el$1@solani.org> <r8uuj1$3j8$1@reader2.panix.com> <r8v23k$ak4$1@dont-email.me> <TOEsG.61838$iB5.60372@fx06.iad> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
> On 5/6/20 3:10 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 5/6/20 2:10 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2020-05-06, Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 06.05.20 um 18:47 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you see any reason those could not be provided on some C
>>>>>> implementation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory size.
>>>>
>>>> Could you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>> I do not see a problem there: If the programmer doesn't use e.g.
>>>> memcpy(), no memcpy() will be linked in, so memory size would not be
>>>> affected.
>>>
>>> Would that be required by the spec?
>>
>> No, but it might be required by the marketplace. If you had a choice of
>> two compilers, one of which always links in standard library routines
>> even if they're unused, and the other of which only links them in if
>> they are used, which one would you select, particularly if targeting a
>> platform with only limited memory? Do you think there's any significant
>> number of people who would choose differently?
>
> By that same logic, people will chose the implementation that implement
> more of the optional headers (or at least the ones they want) over those
> that don't. There is nothing in the Standard to say that they can't
> implement the part that aren't required.
True. On the other hand, there's nothing in the Standard to say that a
freestanding implementation that implements part of the hosted standard
library has to do it correctly.
You probably wouldn't want to require that. For example, an
implementation might reasonably provide printf but not fprintf, or
provide printf but without floating-point support. It would be
difficult to define the requirements for partial support.
It's probably good enough that a freestanding implementation's
documentation can say something like "We support <stdio.h> as specified
by C11 with the following exceptions ...".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 18:19 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 16:47 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 19:16 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 18:10 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-06 15:10 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-06 16:08 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-06 22:29 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-07 15:43 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 22:36 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 20:57 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-05-06 23:25 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 10:17 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-07 18:45 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 10:16 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-05-07 21:39 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 21:44 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-05-07 12:54 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 22:34 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations upsidedown@downunder.com - 2020-05-07 09:13 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-07 18:47 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-07 15:51 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-08 10:09 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2020-05-07 18:00 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-07 17:17 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-07 20:23 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2020-05-08 17:33 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-08 15:56 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 20:31 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-08 18:53 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 21:32 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-09 00:13 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-08 18:45 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-08 22:59 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-09 08:29 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-09 16:10 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-09 20:15 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-10 12:37 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2020-05-09 09:52 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-08 18:48 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.org> - 2020-05-08 17:01 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 20:05 +0200
csiph-web