Not quite standard... but socially acceptable

  • Thread starter Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
  • Start date
K

Keith Thompson

jacob navia said:
Since Mr Heathfield insists using gcc in -ansic and NOT -std=c99 mode
gcc will NOT compile c99.

gcc will not compile C99 with "-std=c99" either.
THEN it follows that c99 is *nowhere implemented* etc.

Are you *deliberately* missing the point?

gcc with "-ansi" or "-std=c89" (plus one or two other options such as
"-pedantic") conforms reasonably well to the C89/C90 standard. (Yes
that version of the C standard is officially obsolete, but a lot of
people still find it useful.)

gcc with "-std=c99" does *not* conform nearly as well to the C99
standard; there are a number of features that are not implemented.

So using "ansi" (or "-std=iso9899:199409" for conformance to C90 plus
Amendment 1, aka C95) is the only way to cause gcc to conform
reasonably well to *some* C standard.

If "gcc -std=c99" is good enough for you, that's fine, as long as
you're aware that it's not a fully conforming implementation.

Note also that C90 is nearly a subset of C99, and both
gcc -ansi
and
gcc -std=c99
*nearly* conform to the C99 standard. They just differ in the
closeness of their conformance.

gcc users can only use a subset of C99. Why do you insist that the
subset supported by "gcc -ansi" is unacceptable, while the subset
supported by "gcc -std=c99" is acceptable?
The key here is:

He doesn't like c99.

What does that have to do with what he wrote? *He doesn't have the
option of using C99*, whether he likes it or not. Even if he obtained
one of the few conforming C99 compilers, he can't expect every one of
his users to do so.
For whatever reasons I do not care. But he should stop praising
"standard C" because what he is using is not standard C.

Old versions of standards don't vanish from the face of the Earth
because ISO declares them to be obsolete. As soon as C99 is as widely
supported as C90, I'll gladly consider the C90 standard to be of only
historical interest. Until then, ignoring C90 is ignoring reality.
I will not answer this polemic since it has been recooked too
many times to have any taste any more.

The way to not answer something is to *not answer* it.
 

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

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,578
Members
45,052
Latest member
LucyCarper

Latest Threads

Top