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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #26885

Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite

From Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite
Date 2012-09-30 14:49 +0100
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <k49ill$6n8$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink)
References <k3072o$ank$1@speranza.aioe.org> <20120926111001.677@kylheku.com> <k47vs3$t2m$1@speranza.aioe.org> <20120929201156.311@kylheku.com>

Show all headers | View raw


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.

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