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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #16761 > unrolled thread

Comparing C11 compilers

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Comparing C11 compilers Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2012-02-06 17:48 +0000
    Re: Comparing C11 compilers Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-02-06 09:50 -0800
    Re: Comparing C11 compilers bartek szurgot <basz@no.spam> - 2012-02-06 20:29 +0100
      Re: Comparing C11 compilers Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-06 11:59 -0800
        Re: Comparing C11 compilers bartek szurgot <basz@no.spam> - 2012-02-08 16:29 +0100
    Re: Comparing C11 compilers Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:36 +0000

#16761 — Comparing C11 compilers

I have been searching on Google for reviews and comparisons of available 
C11 compilers, and general information on degree of compliance and likely 
roll out schedules for major vendors as they update their implementations 
in accordance with the new standard.

However, I've found very little information on this topic!

Which C11 compilers are people here using? Have you had any problems with 
the new features? Does anyone have information on vendors' plans (esp gcc, 
Intel)?

Thanks
__QP__

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16762

Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> writes:

> Which C11 compilers are people here using? Have you had any problems with 
> the new features? Does anyone have information on vendors' plans (esp gcc, 
> Intel)?

Did you see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html, which lists
changes for the upcoming GCC 4.7 release:

  C

  There is support for some more features from the C11 revision of
  the ISO C standard.  GCC now accepts the options -std=c11 and
  -std=gnu11, in addition to the previous -std=c1x and -std=gnu1x.

    * Unicode strings (previously supported only with options such
      as -std=gnu11, now supported with -std=c11), and the
      predefined macros __STDC_UTF_16__ and __STDC_UTF_32__.

    * Nonreturning functions (_Noreturn and <stdnoreturn.h>).

    * Alignment support (_Alignas, _Alignof, max_align_t,
      <stdalign.h>).

    * A built-in function __builtin_complex is provided to support
      C library implementation of the CMPLX family of macros.
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
http://benpfaff.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16769

On 02/06/2012 06:48 PM, Quentin Pope wrote:
> I have been searching on Google for reviews and comparisons of available 
> C11 compilers, and general information on degree of compliance and likely 
> roll out schedules for major vendors as they update their implementations 
> in accordance with the new standard.
> 
> However, I've found very little information on this topic!
> 
> Which C11 compilers are people here using? Have you had any problems with 
> the new features? Does anyone have information on vendors' plans (esp gcc, 
> Intel)?
> 
> Thanks
> __QP__

i had been experimenting with 3 compilers for C++11 (sorry - they are
still C++0x ;)). it looks like this:
1. GCC - most major features are there. many small things are missing
though (list of features can be found on GCC's site). bugs still happen too.
2. Visual (Microsoft) - i'd say that less than a half of what GCC supports.
3. ICC (Intel's) - very limited (basic) support.

i suppose that some commercial compilers may have better support (than
GCC), but i had no chance to play around with them.

-- 
pozdrawiam serdecznie / best regards,
bartek szurgot
/* http://www.baszerr.org */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16773

bartek szurgot <basz@no.spam> writes:
> On 02/06/2012 06:48 PM, Quentin Pope wrote:
[...]
>> Which C11 compilers are people here using? Have you had any problems with 
>> the new features? Does anyone have information on vendors' plans (esp gcc, 
>> Intel)?
>
> i had been experimenting with 3 compilers for C++11 (sorry - they are
> still C++0x ;)). it looks like this:
> 1. GCC - most major features are there. many small things are missing
> though (list of features can be found on GCC's site). bugs still happen too.
> 2. Visual (Microsoft) - i'd say that less than a half of what GCC supports.
> 3. ICC (Intel's) - very limited (basic) support.

The question was about C11, not C++11.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16927

On 02/06/2012 08:59 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> The question was about C11, not C++11.

oops... you're right - my mistake. sorry for spam.

-- 
pozdrawiam serdecznie / best regards,
bartek szurgot
/* http://www.baszerr.org */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16774

Quentin Pope wrote:

> I have been searching on Google for reviews and comparisons of available
> C11 compilers, and general information on degree of compliance and likely
> roll out schedules for major vendors as they update their implementations
> in accordance with the new standard.
> 
> However, I've found very little information on this topic!
> 
> Which C11 compilers are people here using? Have you had any problems with
> the new features? Does anyone have information on vendors' plans (esp gcc,
> Intel)?

I am not aware of any comparisons other than the ones which are displayed in 
each compiler's site.  

It would be nice if there was an objective review on this issue.  Maybe it 
is possible to put together a C11 compliance test and then host the results 
somewhere, such as a wiki from wikia.  

At this moment I'm not able to do this, and I'm affraid it would take a bit 
of time and work to do it right.  Is anyone interested in contributing to 
this?


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web