Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #27047

Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
...
> I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the 
> point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic 
> discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full 
> C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support 
> previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).

I'm in favor of it, but I think that labeling it as "essential" was
excessive. "Desirable" is about the strongest thing I can say about it.
C99 had lots of nice new features I wanted to try out; C2011 made some
of them optional, and the only new features it added were ones I'm not
especially interested in. The ability to write multi-threaded code in an
OS-independent fashion is probably of value to someone, but I've no
particular need for it.

> I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11 
> standard is a bad thing.
> 
> Specifically this response struck me as being ridiculous and somewhat 
> idiotic:
> 
> On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>  > On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
>  >> It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 
>  >>support
>  >
>  > No, it isn't. Not only is is not essential, it is counterproductive.
>  > The "C community" should just go about its business and not mess with 
>  > its compilers or libraries, except in those areas where they are 
>  >foudn to be broken.

I agree - a library doesn't need to be broken in order to benefit from
an upgrade. On the other hand, an upgrade isn't necessarily beneficial,
either. If he'd followed up with a claim that there was something
actively wrong with C2011, or at least that it added nothing of value,
his comments would have made more sense. A reasonable argument of that
kind could be made, based upon the fact that various useful features of
C99 have been made optional. I've got him killfiled, but I just checked
with groups.google.com, and he does not appear to have made any such
argument.

> (Apologies if the quoting above appears broken. Thunderbird isn't the 
> best NNTP client in the world)

The quoting does not appear to be broken. Have you seen Thunderbird
generate quotation errors? If, of what kind?

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-14 22:20 +0100
  Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite steve.b.hafner@gmail.com - 2012-09-22 08:03 -0700
    Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-26 12:54 +0100
  Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-26 18:11 +0000
    Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-30 00:22 +0100
      Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-30 04:14 +0000
        Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-30 14:49 +0100
          Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-30 15:16 +0100
          Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-30 14:47 -0400
          Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-30 14:22 -0700
            Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-10-05 19:33 +0100
              Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-05 14:57 -0400
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 22:07 +0100
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-10-07 14:04 +0100
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-11-12 00:04 -0600
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-11-12 10:07 -0500
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-11-12 10:11 -0800
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-11-12 13:27 -0600
              Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-10-05 12:07 -0700
              Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-10-05 20:25 +0000
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 21:44 +0100
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 22:32 +0100
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-10-05 21:49 +0100
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-10-05 17:37 -0400
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-05 17:15 -0500
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-10-05 18:47 -0700
                Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-05 21:29 -0500
          Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-10-01 21:56 +0000
            Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-10-01 23:41 +0000

csiph-web