C11 Compiler Test Suite

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Chicken McNuggets, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. Does anyone know if a C11 compiler test suite is available?

    If not might I suggest that one be written? It would certainly be
    something that I would be interested in helping with and I think it
    might well have the advantage of pushing open source (and possibly
    closed source) compilers to support the full standard quicker than if
    there was no test suite to call them out on their support.

    It could be a project that might be quite easy to coordinate on
    something like Github.

    For instance I know that Clang supports some of the features of C11
    already but having inquired on the LLVM IRC channel there is no public
    documentation stating what is available. Nor can I find any specific
    information on the state of GCC's C11 support.

    It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support
    as most compiler vendors seem to be concentrating on C++11.
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Sep 14, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chicken McNuggets

    Guest

    On Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20:30 PM UTC-6, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
    > Does anyone know if a C11 compiler test suite is available?
    >
    >
    >
    > If not might I suggest that one be written? It would certainly be
    >
    > something that I would be interested in helping with and I think it
    >
    > might well have the advantage of pushing open source (and possibly
    >
    > closed source) compilers to support the full standard quicker than if
    >
    > there was no test suite to call them out on their support.
    >


    Don't know, but efforts could be combined easily if you start and you find similar projects along the way.

    Anyway, grab the C11 standard:

    http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf

    and C99 standard:

    http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf

    and have at it, if you like.

    >
    >
    > For instance I know that Clang supports some of the features of C11
    >
    > already but having inquired on the LLVM IRC channel there is no public
    >
    > documentation stating what is available. Nor can I find any specific
    >
    > information on the state of GCC's C11 support.
    >


    See

    http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#c11

    and the release notes for GCC 4.7 series:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html

    where it states:

    "There is support for some more features from the C11 revision of the ISO C standard. GCC now accepts the options -std=c11 and -std=gnu11, in addition to the previous -std=c1x and -std=gnu1x.

    "Unicode strings (previously supported only with options such as -std=gnu11, now supported with -std=c11), and the predefined macros __STDC_UTF_16__ and __STDC_UTF_32__.

    -- Nonreturning functions (_Noreturn and <stdnoreturn.h>).
    -- Alignment support (_Alignas, _Alignof, max_align_t, <stdalign.h>).
    -- A built-in function __builtin_complex is provided to support C library implementation of the CMPLX family of macros."


    >
    >
    > It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support


    The most effective noise is someone working at solving the problems. You're a person just like any other.
     
    , Sep 22, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 22/09/2012 16:03, wrote:
    > On Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20:30 PM UTC-6, Chicken McNuggets wrote:


    >> It is essential that the C community makes some noise about C11 support

    >
    > The most effective noise is someone working at solving the problems. You're a person just like any other.
    >


    True. I'll certainly have a look into it once I have some free time in
    the coming weeks.

    I was really just interested in seeing if there was much interest from
    people in the project.
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Sep 26, 2012
    #3
  4. Chicken McNuggets

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Sep 26, 2012
    #4
  5. On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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. Full standards
    support is not optional. It should be demanded.
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Sep 30, 2012
    #5
  6. Chicken McNuggets

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    > On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >> On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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.

    > Full standards support is not optional. It should be demanded.


    Such a thing can be demanded by making a monetary bid. Offer someone
    money to make or patch you a C11 compiler.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Sep 30, 2012
    #6
  7. On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    >> On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >>> On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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.
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Sep 30, 2012
    #7
  8. Chicken McNuggets

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Chicken McNuggets wrote:

    > 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.


    Your comment is detached from reality. No matter what is stated in that
    paragraph, which should be noted that it isn't enforced by anyone or
    anything, people still write code and develop compilers which target and
    support specific versions of the C standard which precede ISO/IEC 9899:2011,
    and neither of those ceasses to be C if a new revision is published.

    In addition, if your comment made any sense then it would mean that once a
    new revision of the C standard was released, suddenly no software in the
    world would have been developed in C.

    There is a reason why standards are referred not only by their name but also
    by their revision number/publication date.


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Sep 30, 2012
    #8
  9. Chicken McNuggets <> writes:
    > On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >> On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    >>> On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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) <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"
     
    Keith Thompson, Sep 30, 2012
    #9
  10. Chicken McNuggets

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2012-09-30, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    > On 30/09/2012 05:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >> On 2012-09-29, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    >>> On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >>>> On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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:


    I did not write anything incorrect ...

    > "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.


    ... because I was addressing myself to the term "broken", and did not
    write a single word about the term "standards compliant".

    > 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 does not make existing copies of C90 spontaneously combust.
    People continue to have old documents in their libraries.

    So there continues to be a C90 language, with a defining document. We can write
    something which conforms to that document.

    Whether the result is called "standard conforming" is about as important as
    debating how many angels you can fit on on top of the head of a modern day
    comp.lang.c regular.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Oct 1, 2012
    #10
  11. Chicken McNuggets

    Alan Curry Guest

    In article <>,
    Kaz Kylheku <> wrote:
    >On 2012-09-30, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    >
    >> 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 does not make existing copies of C90 spontaneously combust.


    Careful, Amazon might read that as a feature request for the next Kindle.

    --
    Alan Curry
     
    Alan Curry, Oct 2, 2012
    #11
  12. On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:

    > 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.
    >


    I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the
    point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic
    discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full
    C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support
    previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).

    I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11
    standard is a bad thing.

    Specifically this response struck me as being ridiculous and somewhat
    idiotic:

    On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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.


    (Apologies if the quoting above appears broken. Thunderbird isn't the
    best NNTP client in the world)
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Oct 5, 2012
    #12
  13. Chicken McNuggets

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/05/2012 02:33 PM, Chicken McNuggets wrote:
    ....
    > I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the
    > point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic
    > discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full
    > C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support
    > previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).


    I'm in favor of it, but I think that labeling it as "essential" was
    excessive. "Desirable" is about the strongest thing I can say about it.
    C99 had lots of nice new features I wanted to try out; C2011 made some
    of them optional, and the only new features it added were ones I'm not
    especially interested in. The ability to write multi-threaded code in an
    OS-independent fashion is probably of value to someone, but I've no
    particular need for it.

    > I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11
    > standard is a bad thing.
    >
    > Specifically this response struck me as being ridiculous and somewhat
    > idiotic:
    >
    > On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > > On 2012-09-14, Chicken McNuggets <> 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.


    I agree - a library doesn't need to be broken in order to benefit from
    an upgrade. On the other hand, an upgrade isn't necessarily beneficial,
    either. If he'd followed up with a claim that there was something
    actively wrong with C2011, or at least that it added nothing of value,
    his comments would have made more sense. A reasonable argument of that
    kind could be made, based upon the fact that various useful features of
    C99 have been made optional. I've got him killfiled, but I just checked
    with groups.google.com, and he does not appear to have made any such
    argument.

    > (Apologies if the quoting above appears broken. Thunderbird isn't the
    > best NNTP client in the world)


    The quoting does not appear to be broken. Have you seen Thunderbird
    generate quotation errors? If, of what kind?
     
    James Kuyper, Oct 5, 2012
    #13
  14. Chicken McNuggets <> writes:
    > On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the
    > point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic
    > discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full
    > C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support
    > previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).


    On the other hand, given a compiler that supports C11, having it also
    support C90 and C99 shouldn't be all that difficult; it would mostly be
    a matter of disabling certain features. And of course the reason it's
    common for compilers to support older standards is that they've evolved
    from earlier compilers.

    On the other other hand, for a newly developed C11 compiler it might not
    be worth the effort to support the earlier standards as well.

    > I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11
    > standard is a bad thing.
    >
    > Specifically this response struck me as being ridiculous and somewhat
    > idiotic:
    >
    > On 26/09/2012 19:11, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

    [snip]

    I'm not going to comment on that; perhaps you should have posted your
    followup to Kaz's article rather than mine. (He's in my killfile,
    so I probably hadn't read it.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <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"
     
    Keith Thompson, Oct 5, 2012
    #14
  15. Chicken McNuggets

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2012-10-05, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    > On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    > I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the
    > point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic
    > discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full
    > C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support
    > previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).


    I can't think of any computational problem that I cannot solve until
    a C11 compiler falls out of the sky and lands in my lap.

    Is there some secret bit manipulation in the CPU that I cannot unlock
    otherwise?

    > I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11
    > standard is a bad thing.


    Software development carries risks. Unnecessary software development,
    therefore, carries unnecessary risks.

    If a C11 upgrade to a compiler breaks some user's code which doesn't use
    anything from C11, the net value of that upgrade is negative.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Oct 5, 2012
    #15
  16. Chicken McNuggets

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Kaz Kylheku wrote:

    > I can't think of any computational problem that I cannot solve until
    > a C11 compiler falls out of the sky and lands in my lap.
    >
    > Is there some secret bit manipulation in the CPU that I cannot unlock
    > otherwise?


    This is a non-argument. If solving computational problems was the only
    metric then, as it's possible to solve them with programs coded purely in
    assembly, every high level programming language would be as useless as you
    are making C11 out to be. And this would be a silly thing to say.


    > Software development carries risks. Unnecessary software development,
    > therefore, carries unnecessary risks.
    >
    > If a C11 upgrade to a compiler breaks some user's code which doesn't use
    > anything from C11, the net value of that upgrade is negative.


    No. It would mean that you had upgraded to a broken compiler, and that you
    were less than rigorous with your decision to rely on a brand new compiler
    to use in production. This has absolutely nothing to do with C11.


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Oct 5, 2012
    #16
  17. On 05/10/2012 21:25, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    > On 2012-10-05, Chicken McNuggets <> wrote:
    >> On 30/09/2012 22:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I take on board the possibility that I am being overly pedantic but the
    >> point of the original post that lead to this somewhat off-topic
    >> discussion was the intention to get more C compilers to support the full
    >> C11 standard irrespective of whether they also continue to support
    >> previous C standards (via the common -std=cxx compiler switch).

    >
    > I can't think of any computational problem that I cannot solve until
    > a C11 compiler falls out of the sky and lands in my lap.
    >
    > Is there some secret bit manipulation in the CPU that I cannot unlock
    > otherwise?


    The point is not whether you can perform some task with previous C
    standards or not. It is whether you can perform those tasks in an easier
    manner. For instance threading in C11 promises to be much easier as you
    will have a threading library that is cross platform compatible built
    into the language itself rather than having to rely on third party
    implementations. Writing code that works on Windows and UNIX will be
    much easier.

    No one is claiming that C99, C90 or even K&R C are not Turing complete
    the point is just that additional language features make certain
    development tasks easier.

    >
    >> I fail to see how trying to get more compilers to fully support the C11
    >> standard is a bad thing.

    >
    > Software development carries risks. Unnecessary software development,
    > therefore, carries unnecessary risks.
    >
    > If a C11 upgrade to a compiler breaks some user's code which doesn't use
    > anything from C11, the net value of that upgrade is negative.
    >


    I would be highly surprised if an upgrade to C11 in a compiler would
    break existing code especially as most compilers (all that I know of)
    allow you to specify the standard you wish to compile your code against
    (with the -std=cxx command line switch).

    If it was shown that a particular compiler broke existing code due to an
    upgrade to C11 I would imagine that the compiler vendor would treat that
    problem with the up-most priority.

    Regardless refusing to implement modern standards because of the risk of
    problems seems somewhat short sighted. There are always risks no matter
    what you are doing. Life is all about making decisions based on the
    possible risk and the eventual benefit. Personally I feel that
    implementing C11 is worth the (small) risk.

    Let us not forget that C compiler vendors are used to implementing new C
    standards. They did it when they transitioned from K&R to ANSI (with the
    possible C90 and C94 being in there depending on whether you count them
    as actual standards or merely just modifications of existing standards)
    then to C99 and now to C11.
     
    Chicken McNuggets, Oct 5, 2012
    #17
  18. Chicken McNuggets

    Rui Maciel Guest

    James Kuyper wrote:

    > I'm in favor of it, but I think that labeling it as "essential" was
    > excessive. "Desirable" is about the strongest thing I can say about it.
    > C99 had lots of nice new features I wanted to try out; C2011 made some
    > of them optional, and the only new features it added were ones I'm not
    > especially interested in. The ability to write multi-threaded code in an
    > OS-independent fashion is probably of value to someone, but I've no
    > particular need for it.


    Truth be told, pthreads already provided a way to write multi-threaded code
    in an OS-independent fashion for nearly a decade, now. The only thing that
    blocked pthreads' adoption was Microsoft's unwillingness to support it.
    Now, looking at Microsoft's notorious unwillingness to comply with the C
    standard, I believe that C11 won't change that as well.

    As a side note, it would be nice to know why a company insists in being
    involved in the definition of a new standard, actively shaping how it
    evolves and what is shoved into it, if the people behind it have absolutely
    no intention to implement their own work.


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Oct 5, 2012
    #18
  19. Chicken McNuggets

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On 2012-10-05, Rui Maciel <> wrote:
    > Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    >
    >> I can't think of any computational problem that I cannot solve until
    >> a C11 compiler falls out of the sky and lands in my lap.
    >>
    >> Is there some secret bit manipulation in the CPU that I cannot unlock
    >> otherwise?

    >
    > This is a non-argument. If solving computational problems was the only
    > metric then, as it's possible to solve them with programs coded purely in
    > assembly, every high level programming language would be as useless as you
    > are making C11 out to be. And this would be a silly thing to say.


    If expressivity and power are also metrics, then some piffling upgrades to high
    level languages do look genuinely useless.
     
    Kaz Kylheku, Oct 5, 2012
    #19
  20. Chicken McNuggets

    Rui Maciel Guest

    Kaz Kylheku wrote:

    > If expressivity and power are also metrics, then some piffling upgrades to
    > high level languages do look genuinely useless.


    They can't be metrics because they are vague to the point they are
    essentially meaningless. We are referring to a set of features which might
    be useful to some people, anf if C11 isn't supported then we simply can't
    rely on them to exist.

    You can spend hours discussing your indifference towards the features
    introduced in C11, but you need to understand that that's only your
    subjective opinion on a subject. Meanwhile, depriving the world of those
    features is something which isn't adequately justified with an uninformed
    "meh".


    Rui Maciel
     
    Rui Maciel, Oct 5, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Virchanza
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,210
    Nobody
    Apr 6, 2011
  2. D. Krmpotic
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    250
    NAKAMURA, Hiroshi
    Aug 3, 2007
  3. Ralph Heinkel
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    960
    Ralph Heinkel
    Mar 22, 2012
  4. Dann Corbit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,010
    Jorgen Grahn
    Jul 13, 2012
  5. Chicken McNuggets

    Compiler with best C11 support

    Chicken McNuggets, Jul 30, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    265
    Chicken McNuggets
    Jul 30, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page