Latest standard after C99?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Srinu, May 1, 2010.

  1. Srinu

    Srinu Guest

    Hi,

    Is there any latest standard available after C99?

    Srinivas
     
    Srinu, May 1, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 2010-05-01, Srinu wrote:

    > Is there any latest standard available after C99?


    No.

    --
    Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
    --Dennis M. Ritchie
     
    Vivien MOREAU, May 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Vivien MOREAU <> writes:

    > On 2010-05-01, Srinu wrote:
    >
    >> Is there any latest standard available after C99?

    >
    > No.


    That's at least debatable! C99 was modified by three technical
    corrigenda so one could argue that the current standard is
    C99+TC1+TC2+TC3. You can read it at:

    http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1256.pdf

    The changes are relatively small and it's certainly not wrong to say C99
    is latest standard.

    --
    Ben.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, May 1, 2010
    #3
  4. I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.

    Lorenzo Villari <> writes:
    > On Sat, 1 May 2010 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
    > Srinu <> wrote:
    >> Is there any latest standard available after C99?
    >>
    >> Srinivas

    >
    > There's the C1X Charter
    >
    > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1250.pdf


    Of course that's not a standard, but it's still quite interesting.

    It's been suggested that the Committee intends to back out some C99
    features and base the new C201X standard on C90. I see no hint of that
    in N1250. There is the following statement:

    With the C1X revision the Committee agreed that it might discuss
    the sub-sectioning of the Standard. As the Standard grows in
    size and complexity the Committee should not force the vendors
    that supply the small machine market to implement features
    that bloat the compiler and are not used in the environment
    for which the implementation is targeted.

    but that doesn't suggest completely dropping any C99 features.
    Note that P.J. Plauger's proposal to make certain features (complex
    arithmetic, threads, VLAs, and possibly atomics) optional is
    consistent with the statement in the charter.

    Another statement from the charter:

    Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
    commercial implementation should be considered.

    is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
    gcc?

    The latest draft of the proposed C201x standard is
    <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1425.pdf>.
    Note that this is *not* a standard; don't expect any implementations
    to support any of the new features yet.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, May 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Srinu

    Guest

    In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >
    > Another statement from the charter:
    >
    > Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
    > commercial implementation should be considered.
    >
    > is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
    > gcc?


    Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
    Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
    commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
    academic and experimental implementations.
    --
    Larry Jones

    What's the matter? Don't you trust your own kid?! -- Calvin
     
    , May 1, 2010
    #5
  6. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Another statement from the charter:
    >>
    >> Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
    >> commercial implementation should be considered.
    >>
    >> is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
    >> gcc?

    >
    > Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
    > Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
    > commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
    > academic and experimental implementations.


    yep.

    I guess it would be like me trying to promote that people add variant typing
    to C.
    my implementation does this, technically, but I end up not using it so much
    for its originally-intended purpose (providing dynamic type support in C),
    rather, its use has typically become more limited, namely flagging off what
    is a dynamically-tyoed reference.

    other misc features:
    128-bit wide pointers;
    built-in support for quaternions and vector geometry;
    ....

    these are all fairly well experimental feaures though, and few are as
    heavily used as originally intended.

    or such...
     
    BGB / cr88192, May 2, 2010
    #6
  7. Srinu

    Richard Bos Guest

    wrote:

    > In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > >
    > > Another statement from the charter:
    > >
    > > Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
    > > commercial implementation should be considered.
    > >
    > > is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
    > > gcc?

    >
    > Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
    > Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
    > commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
    > academic and experimental implementations.


    Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, May 3, 2010
    #7
  8. Srinu

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On May 2, 1:26 am, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > I'm cross-posting this to comp.lang.c and comp.std.c.
    >
    > Lorenzo Villari <> writes:
    > > On Sat, 1 May 2010 04:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
    > > Srinu <> wrote:
    > >> Is there any latest standard available after C99?

    >
    > >> Srinivas

    >
    > > There's the C1X Charter

    "

    Good answer to our friends in Asia! No patronizing BS. Keep up the
    good work. My lecturing seems to be working dat old black magic even
    on Kiki.
     
    spinoza1111, May 3, 2010
    #8
  9. In article <4all.nl>,
    Richard Bos <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.std.c Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > Another statement from the charter:
    >> >
    >> > Only those features that have a history and are in common use by a
    >> > commercial implementation should be considered.
    >> >
    >> > is the word "commercial" intended to exclude implementations such as
    >> > gcc?

    >>
    >> Not at all; the intended meaning is "widely used", not "for profit".
    >> Given its installed base, one could argue that gcc is the most important
    >> commercial implementation around. What we meant to exclude were just
    >> academic and experimental implementations.

    >
    >Then I would suggest that it's the wrong word to use.
    >
    >Richard


    Yes. Why not just use, say, "widely used"?

    --
    (This discussion group is about C, ...)

    Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
    about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
    off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
    traumas of the participants...
     
    Kenny McCormack, May 3, 2010
    #9
    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. Peng Yu
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    727
    Default User
    Sep 29, 2004
  2. Peteris Krumins

    C99 Standard, arrays of size omitted

    Peteris Krumins, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,412
    Simon Biber
    Jun 28, 2003
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,703
    Chris Torek
    Feb 20, 2006
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    609
    Keith Thompson
    Mar 31, 2007
  5. Srinu
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    331
    John H.
    May 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page