Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BGB Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: is the java compiler written in c Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:01:07 -0500 Organization: albasani.net Lines: 85 Message-ID: References: <893a1a37-881c-4e59-a069-38386dd1b0fd@googlegroups.com> <7b5d28de-2f30-4db7-aec7-03bd9ce81d00@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.albasani.net 5C2GiCxZtMugur1eoy5cfRZUDYKd7XaG1rjGm51wu6S/BVzTDyA1Yp1k40QwBtd0aFq1ddkxnI42AeR7pf9Gw7zcgiDS5ju38VpiJgnIyBF3L21xV6OQs3ncfQW3GOE9 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="S/944SWQ1kJGaDVRgOgx11VuyVChNnUOBNUNlPtF2mo0E0DoDX4LAc3+Vq1SH7sjiXJ8kmzEAFb3V60oF0D9D8edKsI7LH/D0dLb8+6JrQHoCcBkS6O7kjzNfgQOXFpF"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:VJJgWH2K7OrB2NYsHS4rutWOoCM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32520 On 9/3/2015 7:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 8/31/2015 2:09 AM, BGB wrote: >> On 8/30/2015 9:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 8/21/2015 11:42 PM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 8/21/2015 9:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 8/21/2015 5:51 PM, BGB wrote: >>>>>> On 8/21/2015 2:15 AM, Eternal Hope wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the one hand, any suggestion that the official C specification is >>>>>>> 'tightened up' so that the almost endless 'undefined behaviors' are >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> rigidly defined is met with howls of protest because of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 'C is so powerful because you can do anything you want with it and >>>>>>> that's the way we like it' >>>>>> >>>>>> you can tighten it up in a way which works on most targets, say, >>>>>> making >>>>>> 'int' always be 32 bits, ... >>>>> >>>>> With C99 that should really not be necessary. >>>>> >>>> >>>> possible, but this in-turn assumes you are using a compiler which >>>> supports C99. >>>> >>>> C99 support is a little less widespread than targets which use a 32-bit >>>> int. >>> >>> C99 compatible or almost C99 compilers are getting out there in most >>> environments from PC and upwards. >>> >>> MSVC++, GCC, XLC, Solaris Studio, HP C etc.. >>> >> >> MSVC is sort of half-way C99. VS2013 got it a bit better at least... > > And VS2015 is almost fully compliant. > yeah, could be. still using 2013 here ATM for Win32 development. good enough for now. dunno about Texas Instruments' compiler. looking it up, apparently it defaults to C89 mode, but a C99 subset can be supported via compiler options. apparently absent features (depends on target, for the chips I am using): wide character support; complex numbers; floating point support (only supported on targets with an FPU); various printf format specifiers; ... apparently, the C++ compiler for the target also does an 'Embedded C++' variant. though, on this target (MSP430G2xxx), the limited ROM space is a much bigger issue than the lack of some features. everything still needs to fit in a few kB of ROM (programs are fairly small and one-off, features added and removed with an eye to the remaining RAM and ROM space). once long ago (~ 15-17 years ago), I messed some with compiling code for M68K, Z80, and 6502 in emulators. the compilers I was using at the time only did K&R. not sure if many people are still seriously using Turbo C and DOS and/or Win16. I have encountered some embedded terminals and other things apparently still based on a shell over Windows 3.x, so it probably is still in use in some places. I guess it is whatever is cheap and easy... like, the chips I am using were mostly because they are reasonably affordable and DIP based (bulk price is around $0.50 each). DIP is useful for small-scale as it allows using sockets and wire-wrap (having PCBs made isn't free either). one can get a lot more but it costs more...