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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #140583

Re: Simple 2d C99 fractal plotter...

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/02/2019 20:07, Bart wrote:
> On 05/02/2019 16:02, David Brown wrote:
>> On 05/02/2019 16:06, Bart wrote:
> 
> 
>> I can appreciate compilers not having C11 support - it is not a commonly
>> used standard.
> 
> But if Chris used C11-only features that weren't supported by a 
> compiler, what you be as dismissive of it as you are with the likes of 
> MSVC?
> 

Many C implementations are not yet fully C11 compatible - especially 
threading (this is usually a library issue, not a compiler issue).  This 
is unfortunate.  It is not too bad, however, in that C11 threads are not 
likely to be particularly popular - they give you less than using 
OS-specific threading libraries, or cross-platform threading libraries. 
(It's different for C++11, which has a number of useful features in its 
threading stuff.)

> 
>> 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).
> 
> 
>>>> 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  Call it "outdated compiler", or "toy compiler" if you prefer.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
> 
> (I've just realised 2017 has come and gone! Are there any actual C17 
> compilers?)
> 

Since C17 is basically just a bug fix and a nicer typographical layout, yes.

>> No, I did not say anything like that.
>>
>>> Nonsense.
> 
> You said this:
> 
> "So 6 of them are not C99 compatible, and are not serious general 
> purpose compiler implementations"
> 
> Why C99? The current C standard is C11, which is now 8 years old. Yet 
> you seem to consider one that doesn't support 100% C11 as still a 
> serious contender, but one that doesn't support 100% C99 as not serious. 
> Or a toy.

Basically, C99 came with a number of major and useful additions to the 
language - few people who use C99 regularly would ever want to go back 
to C90.  It also has a large number of minor or obscure features, some 
of which are optional, which may be of relevance to a few people but are 
rarely needed (like support for systems with more restricted character 
sets, and hexidecimal floating point formats).  I don't see it as a big 
problem if those are missing from a compiler that covers the major parts 
of C99.  But an implementation that can't handle "long long" in a 
printf, type-generic maths, compound literals, designated initialisers, 
VLA's, mixed declarations and code, inline, _Bool, and // comments - 
that is just painful to use.

C11 added relatively little to the language - support for multi-threaded 
code is the main point (whether or not you use its <thread.h> 
functions), with atomics, _Generic and _Static_assert being other useful 
points.

C17 is, as has been said, a bug fix.  I'd expect any compiler that has 
basic C11 in place, and is actively developed, to have C17 support 
before long.

> 
> That it took so many years to get widespread C99 support suggests to me 
> that it wasn't easy to do. (I know you will argue every single C99 
> feature is trivial to support.) And it took gcc apparently over a decade.
> 

I assume that some of the C99 features were not trivial to implement. 
Development of compilers takes time, as does their distribution into 
mainstream use.  There has been enough time for C99.

> So it does seem to me that you are being unduly harsh on any 
> implementation that hasn't yet, or doesn't want to, support full C99. It 
> didn't stop gcc from being used seriously during the years it took to 
> achieve full compliance.

I probably have been unduly harsh - it's a fair criticism.  But I would 
not consider a C implementation to be a modern general-purpose tool 
suitable for developing new C code unless it had at least the majority 
of C99 support.  It might be okay as a niche or special-purpose tool, 
and might be okay for building existing code.

> 
> These are some significant C99 features that my bcc project doesn't 
> support (and won't do as I've lost interest):
> 
>    - VLAs including variable types as parameters
>    - Designated initialisers
>    - Compound literals
>    - Complex types (might have been pre-C99)
> 
> Interestingly, many of those aren't supported by C++ either, so I'm not 
> going to lose any sleep over them.

C++ has complex types - but they are implemented as a template library, 
rather than a fundamental type (that is the right choice for C++, and 
was not an option for C - but it is unfortunate that the result is 
incompatible).

C++ does not have VLA's as such, but some kinds of array (those with a 
compile-time "const" size) are allowed as normal arrays in C++ while 
they count as VLA's in C.  In C++, std::vector is usually used where you 
might have a VLA in C.

Designated initialisers are an extremely useful feature, and can make 
code significantly more robust in the face of changes.  (Imagine you 
have a struct type declared in a header, and you want to initialise an 
object of that type in your code.  Designated initialisers make this 
safe even when the struct definition changes.)  It is something that has 
long been called for in C++, and is part of the next C++20 standard.

I find compound literals to be occasionally neat.  I don't use them much.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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