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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26370 > unrolled thread

C11 Compiler Test Suite

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

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#26370 — C11 Compiler Test Suite

Does anyone know if a C11 compiler test suite is available?

If not might I suggest that one be written? It would certainly be 
something that I would be interested in helping with and I think it 
might well have the advantage of pushing open source (and possibly 
closed source) compilers to support the full standard quicker than if 
there was no test suite to call them out on their support.

It could be a project that might be quite easy to coordinate on 
something like Github.

For instance I know that Clang supports some of the features of C11 
already but having inquired on the LLVM IRC channel there is no public 
documentation stating what is available. Nor can I find any specific 
information on the state of GCC's C11 support.

It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support 
as most compiler vendors seem to be concentrating on C++11.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26586

On Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20:30 PM UTC-6, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> Does anyone know if a C11 compiler test suite is available?
> 
> 
> 
> If not might I suggest that one be written? It would certainly be 
> 
> something that I would be interested in helping with and I think it 
> 
> might well have the advantage of pushing open source (and possibly 
> 
> closed source) compilers to support the full standard quicker than if 
> 
> there was no test suite to call them out on their support.
> 

Don't know, but efforts could be combined easily if you start and you find similar projects along the way. 

Anyway, grab the C11 standard:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf

and C99 standard:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf

and have at it, if you like.

> 
> 
> For instance I know that Clang supports some of the features of C11 
> 
> already but having inquired on the LLVM IRC channel there is no public 
> 
> documentation stating what is available. Nor can I find any specific 
> 
> information on the state of GCC's C11 support.
> 

See

http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#c11

and the release notes for GCC 4.7 series:

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html

where it states:

"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."


> 
> 
> It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support 

The most effective noise is someone working at solving the problems. You're a person just like any other.

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

#26711

On 22/09/2012 16:03, steve.b.hafner@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20:30 PM UTC-6, Chicken McNuggets wrote:

>> It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support
>
> The most effective noise is someone working at solving the problems. You're a person just like any other.
>

True. I'll certainly have a look into it once I have some free time in 
the coming weeks.

I was really just interested in seeing if there was much interest from 
people in the project.

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

#26714

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.

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

#26845

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.
>

If a compiler does not follow the standard (and that includes the latest 
standard) then I would argue that the compiler is broken. Full standards 
support is not optional. It should be demanded.

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

#26849

On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> If a compiler does not follow the standard (and that includes the latest 
> standard) then I would argue that the compiler is broken.

You would argue, but you'd be wrong. Something is broken if it doesn't
implement its specification. The choice of specification is the implementor's
privilege.  If someone writes a compiler that is documented as conforming to
ISO 9899:1990, and it does exactly that, then it's not broken in any way.

> Full standards support is not optional. It should be demanded.

Such a thing can be demanded by making a monetary bid. Offer someone
money to make or patch you a C11 compiler.

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

#26885

On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> If a compiler does not follow the standard (and that includes the latest
>> standard) then I would argue that the compiler is broken.
>
> You would argue, but you'd be wrong. Something is broken if it doesn't
> implement its specification. The choice of specification is the implementor's
> privilege.  If someone writes a compiler that is documented as conforming to
> ISO 9899:1990, and it does exactly that, then it's not broken in any way.

This is incorrect the C11 standard states explicitly:

"This third edition cancels and replaces the second edition, ISO/IEC 
9899:1999, as
corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 1:2001, ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 2:2004, and
ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 3:2007."

thus the only way to be standards compliant is by supporting the latest 
standard. If you only support C90 or C99 then you are not standards 
compliant as the C11 standard explicitly states it cancels and replaces 
all previous standards. Likewise C99 stated that it canceled and 
replaced C90.

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

#26886

Chicken McNuggets wrote:

> This is incorrect the C11 standard states explicitly:
> 
> "This third edition cancels and replaces the second edition, ISO/IEC
> 9899:1999, as
> corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 1:2001, ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 2:2004,
> and ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 3:2007."
> 
> thus the only way to be standards compliant is by supporting the latest
> standard. If you only support C90 or C99 then you are not standards
> compliant as the C11 standard explicitly states it cancels and replaces
> all previous standards. Likewise C99 stated that it canceled and
> replaced C90.

Your comment is detached from reality.  No matter what is stated in that 
paragraph, which should be noted that it isn't enforced by anyone or 
anything, people still write code and develop compilers which target and 
support specific versions of the C standard which precede ISO/IEC 9899:2011, 
and neither of those ceasses to be C if a new revision is published.  

In addition, if your comment made any sense then it would mean that once a 
new revision of the C standard was released, suddenly no software in the 
world would have been developed in C.

There is a reason why standards are referred not only by their name but also 
by their revision number/publication date.


Rui Maciel

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

#26894

On 09/30/2012 09:49 AM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
...
>> You would argue, but you'd be wrong. Something is broken if it doesn't
>> implement its specification. The choice of specification is the implementor's
>> privilege.  If someone writes a compiler that is documented as conforming to
>> ISO 9899:1990, and it does exactly that, then it's not broken in any way.
> 
> This is incorrect the C11 standard states explicitly:
> 
> "This third edition cancels and replaces the second edition, ISO/IEC 
> 9899:1999, as
> corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 1:2001, ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 2:2004, and
> ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 3:2007."
> 
> thus the only way to be standards compliant is by supporting the latest 
> standard. If you only support C90 or C99 then you are not standards 
> compliant as the C11 standard explicitly states it cancels and replaces 
> all previous standards. Likewise C99 stated that it canceled and 
> replaced C90.

In practice, if a vendor advertises a compiler as C90-conforming, they
mean that it would have conformed to the C standard before C99 was
approved, and if someone asks for a C90-conforming compiler, they mean
that they would be satisfied with a compiler that would have conformed
before C99 was approved. According to your argument, by saying that it
conformed with the C90 standard, the vendor was technically claiming
C2011 conformance, which would be false advertising, and the customer,
by asking for C90 conformance, was technically asking for C2011
conformance. However, I doubt that anyone sane would actually interpret
either the claim or the request in that fashion. The legal system is not
sane - there's no guarantees what conclusions it would reach, but in
ordinary usage there's a lot of people interested in C90 conformance,
and uninterested in either C99 or C2011 conformance, no matter what ISO
says about the matter.
I personally like many of the new features of C99, and wish that I was
allowed to use them on my job. The new C2011 features don't interest me
as much, but I wouldn't mind being able to use them, too.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#26913

Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> If a compiler does not follow the standard (and that includes the
>>> latest standard) then I would argue that the compiler is broken.
>>
>> You would argue, but you'd be wrong. Something is broken if it
>> doesn't implement its specification. The choice of specification is
>> the implementor's privilege.  If someone writes a compiler that is
>> documented as conforming to ISO 9899:1990, and it does exactly that,
>> then it's not broken in any way.
>
> This is incorrect the C11 standard states explicitly:
>
> "This third edition cancels and replaces the second edition, ISO/IEC
> 9899:1999, as corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 1:2001, ISO/IEC
> 9899:1999/Cor 2:2004, and ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor 3:2007."
>
> thus the only way to be standards compliant is by supporting the
> latest standard. If you only support C90 or C99 then you are not
> standards compliant as the C11 standard explicitly states it cancels
> and replaces all previous standards. Likewise C99 stated that it
> canceled and replaced C90.

That's true in a sense, but practically speaking it's not.

The ISO C standard (any version of it) does not have the force
of law.  Some jurisdiction could pass a law requiring conformance
to it; I know of none that have done so.  And a contract requiring
conformance could be enforced by law.  But there's no fundamental
reason why such a contract, or even such a law, couldn't specify
a standard other than the current one.

If a vendor states that an implementation conforms to the C90 or C99
standard, we all know what that means, and it's a very useful piece
of information.  The *only* thing missing in that situation is that
ISO doesn't recognize it as a conforming implementation.  Anyone not
speaking officially on behalf of ISO is free to accept or reject
that implementation, on that or any other basis.  And if a compiler
that's claimed to conform to C90 doesn't let me use "restrict" as an
identifier, or fails to diagnose mixed declarations and statements
within a block, then I have a legitimate basis for a bug report.

And even within the context of ISO, the current C++ standard is
ISO/IEC 14882:2011 (C++11).  It includes ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (C99)
as a normative reference.

Old versions of standard do not cease to exist when ISO declares
them obsolete.

Having said all that, I personally would like to see much better
support for the current C standard, and I find, for example,
Microsoft's decision not to support either C99 or C11 annoying.
But Microsoft doesn't get enough money from me for my opinion to
be very relevant to them.

-- 
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]

#27046

On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:

> Having said all that, I personally would like to see much better
> support for the current C standard, and I find, for example,
> Microsoft's decision not to support either C99 or C11 annoying.
> But Microsoft doesn't get enough money from me for my opinion to
> be very relevant to them.
>

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 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.

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

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

#27047

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?

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

#27052

James Kuyper wrote:

> 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.

Truth be told, pthreads already provided a way to write multi-threaded code 
in an OS-independent fashion for nearly a decade, now.  The only thing that 
blocked pthreads' adoption was Microsoft's unwillingness to support it.  
Now, looking at Microsoft's notorious unwillingness to comply with the C 
standard, I believe that C11 won't change that as well.

As a side note, it would be nice to know why a company insists in being 
involved in the definition of a new standard, actively shaping how it 
evolves and what is shoved into it, if the people behind it have absolutely 
no intention to implement their own work.


Rui Maciel

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

#27078

On 05/10/2012 22:07, Rui Maciel wrote:
> James Kuyper wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Truth be told, pthreads already provided a way to write multi-threaded code
> in an OS-independent fashion for nearly a decade, now.  The only thing that
> blocked pthreads' adoption was Microsoft's unwillingness to support it.
> Now, looking at Microsoft's notorious unwillingness to comply with the C
> standard, I believe that C11 won't change that as well.
>

Unfortunately Windows is a required platform for a lot of developers and 
the only way to get a decent C compiler on Windows is to use MinGW or 
the Intel C and C++ compiler suite (I have heard that Clang is making 
progress on the Windows front as well so that may well be an option in 
the not too distant future as well).

All of the above options should support C11 given enough time. The Intel 
compiler in particular was very good at C99 support and was one of the 
first (if I remember correctly) to support the vast majority of the 
standard. So fingers crossed the same will be true for C11.

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

#28216

On 10/5/2012 1:57 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
[snip]
>> (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?

I've seen Thunderbird give two kinds of errors or peculiarities:

1.  It does not follow the Google Groups method of marking ends of
lines well.

2.  It does not follow the quoting by indentation method often used in 
this newsgroup, but rarely if ever in the other newsgroups I read.

It works better in other newsgroups, when replying to threads that
contain no Google Groups posts.

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

#28226

On 11/12/2012 01:04 AM, Robert Miles wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 1:57 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> [snip]
>>> (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?
> 
> I've seen Thunderbird give two kinds of errors or peculiarities:
> 
> 1.  It does not follow the Google Groups method of marking ends of
> lines well.

That's arguably a problem with Google Groups, rather than Thunderbird.
What are those two methods?

> 2.  It does not follow the quoting by indentation method often used in 
> this newsgroup, but rarely if ever in the other newsgroups I read.

Could you demonstrate the two different quotation methods you're
referring to?  I'm using Thunderbird to create my messages, and my
quotation of your message, your quotation of my message, and my earlier
quotation of Chicken McNuggets' message all appear, in Thunderbird, to
use the same consistent quotation method: in the display window,
vertical lines of multiple colors run along the left edge of the quoted
material, the number of lines indicating the depth of quotation. In the
message editing window, those lines are replaced by the same number of
'>' characters. That's the same method I see in when using Google Groups
to view your message. I believe I once read that there was an ISO
standard specifying that method of quotation, though I'm not sure how to
confirm that.
Reviewing the messages in this thread, I do find one other quotation
method, one that puts spaces between the '>' characters. It appears in
one of my own messages, but I've no idea why.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#28232

Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> writes:
> On 10/5/2012 1:57 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> [snip]
>>> (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?
>
> I've seen Thunderbird give two kinds of errors or peculiarities:
>
> 1.  It does not follow the Google Groups method of marking ends of
> lines well.

What method is that?  Many posts I've seen from Google Groups *don't*
mark ends of lines.

> 2.  It does not follow the quoting by indentation method often used in 
> this newsgroup, but rarely if ever in the other newsgroups I read.

What "quoting by indentation" method?  Quotes from previous articles are
marked with ">", "> >", etc., here and in other newsgroups.

> It works better in other newsgroups, when replying to threads that
> contain no Google Groups posts.

Google Groups is badly broken; I don't think Thunderbird can be blamed.

-- 
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]

#28233

On 12-Nov-12 00:04, Robert Miles wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 1:57 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> [snip]
>>> (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?
> 
> I've seen Thunderbird give two kinds of errors or peculiarities:
> 
> 1.  It does not follow the Google Groups method of marking ends of
> lines well.

There is some disagreement in the community about flowed format, which I
suspect is what you're talking about.  That's not limited to GG, and
T-bird's behavior is configurable.

> 2.  It does not follow the quoting by indentation method often used in
> this newsgroup, but rarely if ever in the other newsgroups I read.

It doesn't?  My T-bird does that just fine, though I often have to make
use of Edit->Rewrap to make it look pretty.

> It works better in other newsgroups, when replying to threads that
> contain no Google Groups posts.

I've never noticed any problems specific to GG posts.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

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

#27048

Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Having said all that, I personally would like to see much better
>> support for the current C standard, and I find, for example,
>> Microsoft's decision not to support either C99 or C11 annoying.
>> But Microsoft doesn't get enough money from me for my opinion to
>> be very relevant to them.
>
> 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).

On the other hand, given a compiler that supports C11, having it also
support C90 and C99 shouldn't be all that difficult; it would mostly be
a matter of disabling certain features.  And of course the reason it's
common for compilers to support older standards is that they've evolved
from earlier compilers.

On the other other hand, for a newly developed C11 compiler it might not
be worth the effort to support the earlier standards as well.

> 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:
[snip]

I'm not going to comment on that; perhaps you should have posted your
followup to Kaz's article rather than mine.  (He's in my killfile,
so I probably hadn't read it.)

-- 
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]

#27049

On 2012-10-05, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> Having said all that, I personally would like to see much better
>> support for the current C standard, and I find, for example,
>> Microsoft's decision not to support either C99 or C11 annoying.
>> But Microsoft doesn't get enough money from me for my opinion to
>> be very relevant to them.
>>
>
> 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 can't think of any computational problem that I cannot solve until
a C11 compiler falls out of the sky and lands in my lap.

Is there some secret bit manipulation in the CPU that I cannot unlock
otherwise?

> I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11 
> standard is a bad thing.

Software development carries risks. Unnecessary software development,
therefore, carries unnecessary risks.

If a C11 upgrade to a compiler breaks some user's code which doesn't use
anything from C11, the net value of that upgrade is negative.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web