C89 Standard for Britons

R

Richard Bos

It was reported in another group that people with an address in the UK
can join Manchester Central Library on line, and when you've received
your card, you can read and/or download any BSI Standard for free, as a
PDF. The relevance of this to comp.lang.c is that one of these BSI
Standards is BS EN 29899:1993*, a.k.a. ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amendment 1.
This is a useful way to pick up the previous ISO C Standard, which isn't
always easy to get in another way.

Richard
 
R

Richard Tobin

It was reported in another group that people with an address in the UK
can join Manchester Central Library on line, and when you've received
your card, you can read and/or download any BSI Standard for free, as a
PDF. The relevance of this to comp.lang.c is that one of these BSI
Standards is BS EN 29899:1993*, a.k.a. ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amendment 1.
This is a useful way to pick up the previous ISO C Standard, which isn't
always easy to get in another way.

C99 is also available as a BSI standard, BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

-- Richard
 
R

Richard Bos

C99 is also available as a BSI standard, BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

True, but that's more easily available from any other country as well,
as n1124.pdf. C89 is rarer.

Richard
 
C

Chris Hills

Richard Bos said:
It was reported in another group that people with an address in the UK
can join Manchester Central Library on line, and when you've received
your card, you can read and/or download any BSI Standard for free, as a
PDF. The relevance of this to comp.lang.c is that one of these BSI
Standards is BS EN 29899:1993*, a.k.a. ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amendment 1.
This is a useful way to pick up the previous ISO C Standard, which isn't
always easy to get in another way.

Richard

Your subject and message don't match

C89 is ANSI C that is the US c standard.

C90 is the ISO 9899:1990

The C90/93 standard you mention has been very easily available in the UK
for a long time, In fact my company used to supply it in a bundle with
MISRA-C 1 or 2 for the last 6 years.
 
O

Old Wolf

C89 is ANSI C that is the US c standard.
C90 is the ISO 9899:1990

ISO/IEC 9899:1990 is the same as ANSI X3.159-1989
except the sections are numbered differently (AFAIK).

I have also heard that ANSI subsequently ratified
ISO/IEC 9899:1990 so the latter is also an
"ANSI C standard".
 
L

lawrence.jones

Old Wolf said:
ISO/IEC 9899:1990 is the same as ANSI X3.159-1989
except the sections are numbered differently (AFAIK).

And it doesn't include the Rationale.

-Larry Jones

I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts. -- Calvin
 
C

Chris Hills

Richard Tobin said:
C99 is also available as a BSI standard, BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999.

-- Richard


However the better way to buy it is the Wiley book "The C standard"
ISBN 0-470-84573-2 which contains C99 and the ANSI Rational
 
T

Thomas Dickey

Chris Hills said:
However the better way to buy it is the Wiley book "The C standard"
ISBN 0-470-84573-2 which contains C99 and the ANSI Rational

each to his own (you can't grep paper).
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Chris Hills said:
And you can't grip a PDF :)

BTW ISO9899:200* is likely to be smaller than 9899:1999 :)

Why not just photocopy C90? Then you wouldn't have to wait a decade for
implementations to catch up.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chris Hills said:
And you can't grip a PDF :)

BTW ISO9899:200* is likely to be smaller than 9899:1999 :)

I see the smiley, but is that a serious comment? Can you expand on
it?
 
C

Chris Hills

Richard Heathfield said:
Chris Hills said:


Why not just photocopy C90? Then you wouldn't have to wait a decade for
implementations to catch up.

I don't think implementations will ever catch up with C99

I think you will find that C200* will be C99 with some big bits removed
and a few smaller bits added.

They have woken up to the fact that a lot of things were added to C99 by
pressure groups that the industry as a whole did not want. Also that
the main users of C are, and will be in the future, the embedded
community where they still use a lot of 8 and 16 bit MCU
 
K

Keith Thompson

Chris Hills said:
I don't think implementations will ever catch up with C99

I think you will find that C200* will be C99 with some big bits
removed and a few smaller bits added.

Can you substantiate this claim? Has the committee considered the
fact that most or all C99 features actually have been implemented by
some compilers, and removing them from the language will break
existing code?
 
C

Chris Hills

Keith Thompson said:
Can you substantiate this claim?

See private email
Has the committee considered the
fact that most or all C99 features actually have been implemented by
some compilers, and removing them from the language will break
existing code?

That is not a problem vitally all compilers have extensions to the
standard.

Compilers have only added the C99 parts their customers wanted. So if
some are removed from the standard it will not affect them. They will
continue to use those features. They will just not be part of the
standard.
 
I

Ian Collins

Chris said:
See private email


That is not a problem vitally all compilers have extensions to the
standard.

Compilers have only added the C99 parts their customers wanted. So if
some are removed from the standard it will not affect them. They will
continue to use those features. They will just not be part of the standard.
So the next standard will be a list of optional features that might be
removed in a future edition? What a joke.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Keith Thompson said:

Has the committee considered the
fact that most or all C99 features actually have been implemented by
some compilers, and removing them from the language will break
existing code?

I would like to assure the committee that, even if they remove *all* the
features added by C99, this will have no effect whatsoever on my
existing code.
 
C

Chris Hills

Ian Collins said:
Chris said:
Keith Thompson said:
[...]
I don't think implementations will ever catch up with C99

I think you will find that C200* will be C99 with some big bits
removed and a few smaller bits added.

Can you substantiate this claim?

See private email
Has the committee considered the
fact that most or all C99 features actually have been implemented by
some compilers, and removing them from the language will break
existing code?

That is not a problem vitally all compilers have extensions to the
standard.

Compilers have only added the C99 parts their customers wanted. So if
some are removed from the standard it will not affect them. They will
continue to use those features. They will just not be part of the standard.
So the next standard will be a list of optional features that might be
removed in a future edition? What a joke.

What is your solution....

Would you care to share your experiences from having worked on an
international standard?
 
R

Richard Tobin

Compilers have only added the C99 parts their customers wanted.

It seems to me that several parts of C99 should have been published
as separate standards, to which compilers could claim conformance
if they implemented them. The floating-point environment and complex
number support are obvious examples. If this had been done, I think
the core of C99 would be much more widely supported and used.

-- Richard
 
C

Chris Hills

Richard Heathfield said:
Keith Thompson said:



I would like to assure the committee that, even if they remove *all* the
features added by C99, this will have no effect whatsoever on my
existing code.

I will let them know Richard, and I am sure that this will reassure
them greatly :)

DON'T PANIC the sort of things they were looking at are the ones that
(virtually) no one has implemented.

It still does not matter as people who do NEED those features will still
be able to use them as extensions just as virtually everybody else does.

It is either that or include ALL extensions (as used from 8 to 128 bit
in embedded compilers) along with the proposed Standard Graphics
library and file system....
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top