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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #26913

Re: C11 Compiler Test Suite

Show all headers | View raw

Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> 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.

That's true in a sense, but practically speaking it's not.

The ISO C standard (any version of it) does not have the force
of law.  Some jurisdiction could pass a law requiring conformance
to it; I know of none that have done so.  And a contract requiring
conformance could be enforced by law.  But there's no fundamental
reason why such a contract, or even such a law, couldn't specify
a standard other than the current one.

If a vendor states that an implementation conforms to the C90 or C99
standard, we all know what that means, and it's a very useful piece
of information.  The *only* thing missing in that situation is that
ISO doesn't recognize it as a conforming implementation.  Anyone not
speaking officially on behalf of ISO is free to accept or reject
that implementation, on that or any other basis.  And if a compiler
that's claimed to conform to C90 doesn't let me use "restrict" as an
identifier, or fails to diagnose mixed declarations and statements
within a block, then I have a legitimate basis for a bug report.

And even within the context of ISO, the current C++ standard is
ISO/IEC 14882:2011 (C++11).  It includes ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (C99)
as a normative reference.

Old versions of standard do not cease to exist when ISO declares
them obsolete.

Having said all that, I personally would like to see much better
support for the current C standard, and I find, for example,
Microsoft's decision not to support either C99 or C11 annoying.
But Microsoft doesn't get enough money from me for my opinion to
be very relevant to them.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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