Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #7572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 197 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is fixed or not ? David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> - 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200
POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100
Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 04:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 12:22 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 16:14 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-17 08:01 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-16 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-17 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-19 01:14 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 00:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 22:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:09 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:24 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:38 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-16 11:46 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-16 14:53 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv1u8s$cv3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7740 |
Le 06/07/11 10:10, Ian Collins a écrit : > On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >> >>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>> advantage. >>> >> >> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this >> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. > > Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour of > any of the C++ threading proposal papers. > Dinkumware thread library ------------------------- int thrd_create(thrd_t *, thrd_start_t, void*); thrd_t thrd_current(void); int thrd_detach(thrd_t); int thrd_equal(thrd_t thr0, thrd_t thr1); void thrd_exit(int); int thrd_join(thrd_t, int*); void thrd_sleep(const xtime*); void thrd_yield(void); Proposed C standard ------------------- int thrd_create(thrd_t *thr, thrd_start_t func,void *arg); thrd_t thrd_current(void); int thrd_detach(thrd_t thr); int thrd_equal(thrd_t thr0, thrd_t thr1); void thrd_exit(int res); int thrd_join(thrd_t thr, int *res); void thrd_sleep(const xtime *xt); void thrd_yield(void); I did not pursue this further. If you do not believe me please look in http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/?manual=compleat&page=threads.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5r74$io1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7681 |
jameskuyper wrote: > Well, in that case it should be pretty easy to confirm whether the > proposal can be implemented; if nothing else, Plaugher can make the > needed modifications to his own library, and determine whether they > work. Since his library is fairly popular, that also suggests that > there's a reasonable amount of existing experience with how to use a > library that's not too different from the final proposal. Let's see... a POPULAR, PROVEN library by a renowned C expert being considered for inclusion into the standard? What! Blasphemy! Right JN? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e16eeca$0$22162$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7921 |
MikeP wrote: > Let's see... a POPULAR, PROVEN library by a renowned C expert being > considered for inclusion into the standard? What! Blasphemy! Right JN? ;) I don't believe that the pthreads API is not popular, proven nor developed by C experts. Adding to this, the pthreads API has been an international standard for over a decade, something which Dinkumware is not. If we are discussing a standardization process then ignoring an already established international standard while imposing a specific proprietary library which tries to duplicate the features already covered by that international standard then although it isn't blasphemy it sure isn't far from it. At least in what concerns the standardization process it does look a lot like incompetence, if not worse. And this doesn't bode well for this C201x standardization effort. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv704j$tnv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7957 |
Le 08/07/11 13:42, Rui Maciel a écrit : > MikeP wrote: > >> Let's see... a POPULAR, PROVEN library by a renowned C expert being >> considered for inclusion into the standard? What! Blasphemy! Right JN? ;) > > I don't believe that the pthreads API is not popular, proven nor developed > by C experts. Adding to this, the pthreads API has been an international > standard for over a decade, something which Dinkumware is not. If we are > discussing a standardization process then ignoring an already established > international standard while imposing a specific proprietary library which > tries to duplicate the features already covered by that international > standard then although it isn't blasphemy it sure isn't far from it. At > least in what concerns the standardization process it does look a lot like > incompetence, if not worse. And this doesn't bode well for this C201x > standardization effort. > > > Rui Maciel Not only that all interfaces are exactly the same as Dinkum's, the specifications of the proposed standard are almost identical word for word to the documentation of Dinkum's! I still do not understand why Dinkum's doesn't sue because of copyright infringement. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv81c9$bjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7957 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > MikeP wrote: > >> Let's see... a POPULAR, PROVEN library by a renowned C expert being >> considered for inclusion into the standard? What! Blasphemy! Right >> JN? ;) > > I don't believe that the pthreads API is not popular, proven nor > developed by C experts. I'm not taking sides on a given product, for I don't use either one of them. I'm just saying about where the products come from and the surrounding politics. > Adding to this, the pthreads API has been an > international standard for over a decade, WOOO HOOO! SOOOO WHAT?!!! (You sound like a broken record). > something which Dinkumware > is not. If we are discussing a standardization process then ignoring > an already established international standard while imposing a > specific proprietary library which tries to duplicate the features > already covered by that international standard then although it isn't > blasphemy it sure isn't far from it. At least in what concerns the > standardization process it does look a lot like incompetence, if not > worse. And this doesn't bode well for this C201x standardization > effort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny60d1s43.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #7596 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote: >> Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it >>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the >>> language as it was. >>> >>> There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor. >> >> Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking >> interfaces minor features? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X >> >> Or do you think these features will not make it into the >> next standard? > > His comments about the past make sense only if he's referring to the > language as actually used, rather than as defined by the relevant > standards. His comments about the future are therefore, presumably, > about the language as it will be used, not about anticipated changes to > the standard. > > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't > actually be used. [snip] The key question is not whether (or how widely) C1X might be used but how widely it will be implemented. If C1X is widely implemented then its new features will be used.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cDTpo1EP4AFOFAZ$@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7622 |
In message <kfny60d1s43.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes > >The key question is not whether (or how widely) C1X might be >used but how widely it will be implemented. If C1X is widely >implemented then its new features will be used. That is the crux of the problem. C99 was very slow in it's uptake and then only partially. IF C1X is also not what the industry wants then it too will be ignored. This will damage the credibility of the ISO C Group ISO C standards should be standardising current practice not introducing new things. If new things are wanted compiler companies would already be implementing them for their customers. If there is (or is not) customer demand compiler companies will (or will not) implement features no matter what the standard says. -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87hb6y58yn.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #7738 |
Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> writes: > In message <kfny60d1s43.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>, Tim Rentsch > <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes > > > >The key question is not whether (or how widely) C1X might be > >used but how widely it will be implemented. If C1X is widely > >implemented then its new features will be used. > > That is the crux of the problem. C99 was very slow in it's uptake and > then only partially. IF C1X is also not what the industry wants then > it too will be ignored. I'm not sure I agree with all this anti-C99-uptake guff. There were plenty of people using C99 features even before C99 was compiled, simply because many of the features were accepted into C99 because of their prior proof in the field. I know I barely changed my coding style at all after C99 came in, all I did was change my compiler options to vary what I would get diagnostics for. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eacb5479-97b2-470c-9574-23d360f80028@x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7596 |
On Jul 4, 7:01 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't > actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with > such things to judge. > A good design is only one factor in acceptance. Others are support from compiler vendors, some solid reason for abandoning competing methods, sufficient stability in underlying technologies to give the design longevity, and marketing issues. -- Vist my website http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iuv5lh$rnq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7595 |
Noob wrote: > Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking > interfaces minor features? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X On the subject of threading, I found this discussion rather interesting. Should "volatile" Acquire Atomicity and Thread Visibility Semantics? http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2016.html Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu452$3mq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7593 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Jul 4, 10:31 am, David Remacle <lis...@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: >> >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? >> > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to > include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be > widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was. > The one thing I liked about it over C++ and it was nixed... go figure!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da53f7af-a519-4c07-b148-38fcc9c0b4d9@a10g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7593 |
On Jul 4, 4:01 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to > include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be > widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was. Speak for yourself. Just as an example, just about every application running on an iPhone is written using a compiler that will compile C with variable-sized arrays by default (either LLVM / GCC4.2 or LLVM/ Clang). So how big is the "user community" that _you_ are talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dfDpvdDPDdFOFAoz@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7798 |
In message <da53f7af-a519-4c07-b148-38fcc9c0b4d9@a10g2000vbz.googlegroup s.com>, christian.bau <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> writes >On Jul 4, 4:01 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >wrote: > >> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >> include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be >> widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was. > >Speak for yourself. Just as an example, just about every application >running on an iPhone is written using a compiler that will compile C >with variable-sized arrays by default (either LLVM / GCC4.2 or LLVM/ >Clang). So how big is the "user community" that _you_ are talking >about? How about the vast majority that don't use those compilers? -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97mi54FbcvU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7849 |
On 07/ 8/11 03:29 AM, Chris H wrote: > In message<da53f7af-a519-4c07-b148-38fcc9c0b4d9@a10g2000vbz.googlegroup > s.com>, christian.bau<christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> writes >> On Jul 4, 4:01 pm, Malcolm McLean<malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >> wrote: >> >>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >>> include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be >>> widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was. >> >> Speak for yourself. Just as an example, just about every application >> running on an iPhone is written using a compiler that will compile C >> with variable-sized arrays by default (either LLVM / GCC4.2 or LLVM/ >> Clang). So how big is the "user community" that _you_ are talking >> about? > > How about the vast majority that don't use those compilers? If those compilers aren't used by the majority of C programmers, which one are? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny60d3f1e.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes:
>>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ?
>
> The language described by »ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C« is fixed
> (ignoring possible inconsistences or absences of definitions).
Not correct. Three Technical Corrigenda have been published since the
C99 standard. (And for some reason you ignored ISO C90.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu29s$rcj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
David Remacle wrote: > Hello, > > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? Neutered, but some people (oddly) are trying to reattach it's balls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3FvDpaD$oHFOFAtc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
In message <C-20110706123929@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> writes >David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes: >>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > > I have learned that not everyone participating in this > newsgroup has a background in computer science. Correct... But I do and I have also been on the ISO C panel and have just done two days on the MISRA-C working group. > A programming language is a ›formal language‹: > > ›In computer science[, formal languages] are used, among > other things, for the precise definition of data formats > and the syntax of programming languages.‹ Other than the large amount of known undefined and implementation specific stuff in the standard there are the errors and mistakes that cause TC's and amendments. The C standard is NOT fixed it is evolving at least it was when I was on the ISO C panel. As for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language Wiki is NOT a valid reference for this. (An ISO standard might be) Some of us also have to work in reality of critical systems. So take your word games elsewhere where they may be appreciated. -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web