Re: What constitutes "standard" C?

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: What constitutes "standard" C?
Date	2015-03-07 15:43 -0800
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<87wq2s4bmz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <mdemv4$ujt$1@dont-email.me> <mdf8m2$lg$2@dont-email.me> <mdfbb3$bps$1@dont-email.me> <mdfdil$kg3$1@dont-email.me> <3eLKw.50412$895.40124@fx08.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
[...]
> I thought that the Translation Limit section gave you an out on
> this. While an implementation must accept at least 1 program that
> reaches all of the listed limits, the wording is clear that it need
> not translate all programs within the translation limits.
>
> Note that it must "accept" all strictly conforming programs, but as
> far as I can see, what that mean is not defined, but it clearly is NOT
> the same as "translate" as the implementation is only required to do
> this for one program.

There have been discussions here before about the distinction between
"accepting" and "translating" a program, but I'm still unclear on just
what the intended difference is.

It seems to me that there's little point in a compiler "accepting" a
translation unit if it's not going to generate code for it.

Concretely, can anyone cite an example of a real-world compiler
"accepting" a translation unit but failing to translate it?

> 4p4 says it must not "translate" but doesn't say it must not "accept"
> it. If 4p4 is to mean that an implementation must be able to decide if
> any program (within the specified translation limits) fails due to a
> #error directive, then I suspect that every current implementation
> will fail as you can make the program arbitrarily long so the compiler
> will by necessity run out of storage to process the file.

A very long program won't necessarily exceed the storage requirements
for a compiler.  A *complex* program (say, a program with deeply nested
constructs) is more likely to do so.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Thread

What constitutes "standard" C? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-03-06 23:41 -0800
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-03-07 02:57 -0600
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-07 02:51 -0800
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 11:25 +0000
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 18:34 +0000
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-09 11:21 -0400
        Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-09 16:08 +0000
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-03-07 15:07 -0500
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 11:21 +0000
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 11:24 -0500
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 17:09 +0000
        Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 12:47 -0500
          Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-07 17:47 -0500
            Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 15:43 -0800
              Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-08 01:03 +0000
              Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-03-07 21:02 -0500
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 18:51 -0800
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 16:02 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 08:52 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 15:55 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 16:33 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-27 20:14 +0000
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-27 17:19 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-27 17:30 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 14:27 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-28 20:43 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-04 12:15 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-05 01:13 +0000
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-05 13:43 -0400
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-05 20:14 +0000
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-05 13:28 -0700
                Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-05 17:56 -0400
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-03-07 14:03 +0100
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-03-07 13:30 +0000
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-03-07 14:42 +0000
        Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 08:33 -0800
        Re: What constitutes "standard" C? "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2015-03-07 18:53 -0500
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 16:42 -0800
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 15:49 -0800
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-03-07 05:13 -0800
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-07 15:35 +0000
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-03-07 10:49 -0500
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-03-07 10:52 -0500
  Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-07 11:21 -0500
    Re: What constitutes "standard" C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-07 17:10 -0800
      Re: What constitutes "standard" C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-03-09 11:32 -0400

csiph-web