Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: // at beginning of line |
| Date | 2011-06-03 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-Id | <pan.2011.06.03.11.54.42.78000@nowhere.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| References | (4 earlier) <ABbOoDBc5z5NFAmF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <is7nst$vr5$1@dont-email.me> <dkDZhlC+d25NFA3S@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <94qcg5F4saU1@mid.individual.net> <UbRrOpA63J6NFAdg@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| Organization | Zen Internet |
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 09:40:26 +0100, Chris H wrote: > My worry is they will try and move C closer to C++. A vast amount of C > is in the embedded area on 8-128 bit systems where they don't want C++ I doubt that they'll add features which increase the run-time overhead even if you don't use those features. And even if they did, embedded compilers will inevitably provide an option to disable support for such features, in the same way that C++ compilers typically allow support for exceptions and RTTI to be disabled. It's not as if you can run typical C89/C99 code on a small embedded system. Most such code assumes a hosted implementation, while small embedded systems often only provide a freestanding implementation plus the most critical portions of the standard library (e.g. most of <string.h>, maybe malloc() etc if memory is measured in kilobytes rather than bytes, but probably not <stdio.h>). At the low end, compilers won't hesitate to deviate from the standard if it's appropriate. E.g. "rom"-qualified pointers (and RAM/ROM variants of much of <string.h>) on systems where flash is more plentiful than RAM.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
// at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-01 19:44 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-01 12:48 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 19:55 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-01 20:46 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 13:54 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Federico <no.adress@nospam.com> - 2011-06-02 19:34 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-02 12:38 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 13:13 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 20:59 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 12:56 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-01 23:06 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-06-02 07:15 +0000
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 08:40 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 06:15 -0400
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 11:35 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 07:58 -0400
Re: // at beginning of line Lorenzo Villari <vlllnz@tiscali.it> - 2011-06-02 15:18 +0200
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-02 14:59 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 09:09 +1200
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-03 09:40 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-03 20:51 +1200
Re: // at beginning of line James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:57 -0400
Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 12:54 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-03 13:27 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 09:42 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-05 17:27 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 12:35 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-06 09:27 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-06 09:29 -0700
Re: // at beginning of line Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-06-06 14:37 -0400
Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-03 23:16 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-05 17:28 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-06 22:39 +0100
Re: // at beginning of line Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 23:05 -0500
Re: // at beginning of line Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 13:34 -0400
csiph-web