Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Difference between C89 and other C standards Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:34:32 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 32 Message-ID: <87eec45vk7.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <45bddc19-f745-4c9e-b395-8a6b2dd39f5an@googlegroups.com> <87o8bi8ycb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86o8b96uge.fsf@linuxsc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d99a2aa5e30c72b9011dead7e6361f9f"; logging-data="13339"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3K+6LQOQ50pczGpkGdBY9" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8s9OoIsVsi6txv53C3lTbI09Igs= sha1:BKkjLvLChrXI/TvAPVXGyFVRKUE= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:161881 Tim Rentsch writes: > Keith Thompson writes: >> Rayshawn Levy writes: >>> I'm trying to figure out the differences between C89 and the other >>> C standards. What are the valid types, macros, directives, syntax, >>> etc. in C89 (I can't seem to find the answer to this anywhere) >>> compared to the other standards and there seems to be a shortage of >>> proper C89 tutorials on the web. Can anyone help? By the way I'm >>> new to the group so, nice to meet you all! >> >> C89 and C90 are the same language, [...] > > They are almost but not quite the same language. There are a few > minor differences that I ran across accidentally some time ago > while looking at the two sort of side-by-side. I don't remember > what any of the differences are, except that they were minor > changes (such as adding a few words to an existing sentence). > > I think for practical purposes C89 and C90 can be considered to > be the same language in almost all cases. I just wanted to > report the existence of a few changes between the two standards. > > Note that what I'm reporting are differences in the literal texts > in the two cases, not necessarily differences in intent for what > the texts are meant to express. Any chance you could be more specific? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */