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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26894

Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite

Show all headers | View raw

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

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