Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.std.c > #6075 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-05-06 18:19 +0200 |
| Last post | 2020-05-09 00:25 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 on this page of 41 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.std.c
Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 18:19 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 16:47 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 19:16 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 18:10 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2020-05-06 15:10 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-06 16:08 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-05-06 22:29 -0400
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-07 15:43 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-07 06:08 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 22:36 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 20:57 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-05-06 23:25 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-06 21:34 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 10:17 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-07 18:45 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 10:16 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-05-07 21:39 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 21:44 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2020-05-07 12:54 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-08 08:38 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 21:30 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-30 02:04 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-08-04 10:58 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-04 07:35 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-06 22:34 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations upsidedown@downunder.com - 2020-05-07 09:13 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-07 18:47 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-05-07 15:51 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2020-05-08 10:09 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2020-05-08 18:48 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.org> - 2020-05-08 17:01 +0000
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 20:05 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations upsidedown@downunder.com - 2020-05-07 08:59 +0300
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-07 06:14 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-07 21:38 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-08 12:03 -0700
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 21:15 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-05-08 21:27 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet@wisemo.com.invalid> - 2020-05-15 15:13 +0200
Re: Making more of the C standard library mandatory for freestanding implementations David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-05-09 00:25 +0200
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-05-09 00:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <r94m8u$g6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #6112 |
On 08/05/2020 21:03, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> writes: > >> Am 07.05.20 um 15:14 schrieb Tim Rentsch: >> >>> Freestanding implementations may provide whatever additional >>> library facilities they choose, but the required set should >>> be kept where it is, at an absolute minimum. >> >> Why? > > I would turn that question around and ask why should the minimum > be raised? Your written proposal doesn't offer even any good > arguments, let alone any compelling or convincing ones. > >> By the same argument you could make support for int or anything else >> optional for freestanding implemnentations. > > That's wrong. The case for int is not at all the same argument. > > * Every program uses int. Not every program uses any > <string.h> functions. That is not the case for small embedded systems. On 8-bit cpus, "int" is invariably 16-bit, and you will want to use int8_t and uint8_t as much as you can. It's only going to be very small programs that don't use "int" (or other 16-bit types, like int16_t or uint16_t), but when you have a microcontroller from the bottom end of the list, all your programs are small. (I have used an 8-bit cpu with no ram, 32 8-bit registers, and 1K of program space. I programmed it in C with gcc, and I did not use "int". It was probably the smallest real program I have written.) > > * Supporting int has no runtime footprint costs even on > pretty tiny processors. Functions in <string.h> often do. > For many small processors, supporting "int" involves a fair number of "language support library" routines, for handling multiplication, division, and shifts. > * Support for int on freestanding implementations is already > in the Standard. The default position is always in favor > of the status quo. Removing support for int would need at > the very least a compelling argument to do so; leaving it > in needs no argument at all. This situation is exactly > reversed for the <string.h> proposal. Agreed. > >> Stuff that cannot be implemented easily on certain hardware should >> surely be optional (or even better, the standard should try to avoid >> introducing features in a way that make them hard or inefficient to >> implement on certain types of hardware). > > Personally I think there are reasons to consider lowering the > requirements on freestanding implementations for integer types > wider than int, and perhaps make floating point optional entirely. > But that is another conversation. There is no need. People making and using compilers for such small systems have no qualms about non-conforming toolchains. No one using an 8-bit AVR is put off by a compiler having 32-bit "double", or not supporting "long long" (even if it supports most of the rest of C99). These things are already optional - because putting a "standards compliant" stamp on a toolchain is optional.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.std.c
csiph-web