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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #27055

Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/05/2012 04:49 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 21:25, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2012-10-05, Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
...
> The point is not whether you can perform some task with previous C 
> standards or not. It is whether you can perform those tasks in an easier 
> manner.

"Allows performing tasks to be performed more easily" != "essential".
There's only a few specialized tasks that can be performed more easily
in C2011 than in C99. It's not even as big of a change as C99 was, and
that was a fairly minor update.

> For instance threading in C11 promises to be much easier as you 
> will have a threading library that is cross platform compatible built 
> into the language itself rather than having to rely on third party 
> implementations. Writing code that works on Windows and UNIX will be 
> much easier.

Will it? I don't write multi-threaded code at all, so I have no idea.
But I know that <threads.h> only implements a sub-set of the features of
either POSIX pthreads, or the Windows equivalent (I've no idea what it's
name is). What fraction of current multi-threaded programs use only
those features of POSIX (or Windows) for which there's a <threads.h>
equivalent?

...
> I would be highly surprised if an upgrade to C11 in a compiler would 
> break existing code especially as most compilers (all that I know of) 
> allow you to specify the standard you wish to compile your code against 
> (with the -std=cxx command line switch).

You haven't actually upgraded to C2011, even if your compiler supports
it, if you need to use -std=c99 to make your code compile.

> If it was shown that a particular compiler broke existing code due to an 
> upgrade to C11 I would imagine that the compiler vendor would treat that 
> problem with the up-most priority.

Many of the new features of C99 that were mandatory are now optional in
C2011. If a vendor took advantage of that fact to cease supporting one
of those features, I doubt that they would consider the lack of support
to be a problem of any kind, much less a high priority one. That
wouldn't make code that used those features any less broken.

...
> Let us not forget that C compiler vendors are used to implementing new C 
> standards. ... 

Not really - for most of them, the last time they fully implemented a
new C standard was 1995 or earlier. Even the more up-to-date compilers
haven't had to implement a new C standard since 2000, which is a fairly
long time in the IT world. Many of the people who did the design work in
2000 may have either retired, been laid off, or been promoted into
management by now.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web