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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #5354

Re: // at beginning of line

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

Show all headers | View raw


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


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