Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter...

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter...
Date	2019-02-05 17:02 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<q3cc2a$bfd$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <NC56E.13730$JH4.6556@fx01.am4> <q3bp2f$82v$1@dont-email.me> <Dee6E.734899$kk4.604984@fx36.am4> <q3c3fg$lqn$1@dont-email.me> <dEh6E.148114$UF1.12452@fx13.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/02/2019 16:06, Bart wrote:
> On 05/02/2019 13:35, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/02/2019 12:14, Bart wrote:
> 
>>> And as I said, only 2 of my 8 C Windows compilers managed to compile
>>> that code. 7 of them purport to be C99 compilers (7 support designated
>>> initialisers, 6 VLAs, 6 (a different 6) compound literals).
>>>
>>
>> So 6 of them are not C99 compatible, and are not serious general purpose
>> C compiler implementations
> 
> MSVC? Surely /you/ jest?
> 

No, MSVC has been a laughing stock amongst C programmers for a very long
time, because it does not support modern C.  It is a fine C++ tool, but
a terrible C tool.  (Though as I understand it, recent versions have
improved somewhat.)  MSVC has single-handedly restricted the use of C on
Windows by failing to support C99.

> 
>> It is C99 code, and C99 implementations will handle it fine.
> 
> Which are? Have a look here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99
> 
> (You may need to expand the Implementations section.)
> 
> There is a long list of compilers with partial C99 support. According to
> you, such compilers are worthless toys.
> 

Many (such as gcc and clang) only say "mostly" or "partial" because they
don't include all optional features of C99.  Pretty much the only
missing points are some floating point pragmas and universal character
identifiers.  There is a difference between such minor points, and major
features like mixed declarations and statements.

(Complex numbers are a bit odd, in that they are made optional in C11.)

> Note that this article calls them all "C compilers". Again, according to
> you, they mustn't call them C compilers unless they have full C99
> compliance. How about those that have full C99, but partial C11 support?
> 

I can appreciate compilers not having C11 support - it is not a commonly
used standard.

> Interestingly, both clang and gcc are listed as having 'Mostly' C99
> support (I don't know how old the article is). So before 2014 anyway,
> not even gcc was a proper C compiler according to your own standards!
> 2014 was 15 years after 1999.

Again, look at the details.  People have been writing C99 code with gcc
for a very long time (though it did take a number of years before gcc's
C99 support was practically complete).

> 
>> You think these are "new and advanced" - surely you jest.
> 
> He makes uses of _Generic (C11) and things like _Atomic (C11) and
> threads (C11) (not in this code but elsewhere).

And that is fine.  These features exist for a reason - if his code is
better with these, then he should use them.

> 
>>> I wouldn't call anything that doesn't support those a niche compiler, as
>>> it can still cope with a vast number of useful programs.
>>>
>>
>> OK.  Call it "outdated compiler", or "toy compiler" if you prefer.
>> Don't call it a "C compiler", because that implies real, modern C.  (It
>> actually implies C17 support, since that is the current version of C.)
> 
> So as soon as the first C17 compiler comes out, all other C compilers
> become toys?
> 

No, I did not say anything like that.

> Nonsense.

Thread

Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-25 14:24 -0800
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson " <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-25 15:11 -0800
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-01-25 23:50 +0000
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-25 16:33 -0800
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 00:45 +0000
      Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson " <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-25 16:55 -0800
        Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 00:59 +0000
      Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-01-26 20:29 +0000
        Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 21:37 +0000
          Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-01-27 12:11 +0000
            Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-01-27 13:40 +0000
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 00:57 +0000
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-27 15:37 -0800
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 12:35 +0000
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-27 13:20 +0100
      Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-27 14:13 +0000
        Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-01-27 16:36 +0100
          Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-27 14:28 -0800
            Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-27 23:53 +0000
          Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-29 13:11 -0800
            Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-29 22:23 +0000
              Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-04 15:30 -0800
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 01:26 +0000
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-05 16:14 +1300
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 11:38 +0100
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 11:14 +0000
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 14:35 +0100
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 15:06 +0000
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 17:02 +0100
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-05 19:07 +0000
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-06 08:12 +1300
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-05 12:49 -0800
                Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-05 22:39 +0100
        Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-01-27 13:09 -0800
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-01-26 18:53 +0000
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <ahh_f_it@crap.nothing> - 2019-01-26 18:21 -0800
  Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-28 22:20 -0800
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-28 22:55 -0800
      Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-01-28 23:03 -0800
    Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-06 22:37 -0800
      Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-11 13:44 -0800

csiph-web