Where to download C99 Standard

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Shivanand Kadwadkar, Dec 27, 2010.

  1. I have been searching the C99 complete standard but i am not able to
    get it on internet.

    If anyone knows URL from where we can download please share it or
    have a copy can you please send it to
    me() if you dont have any problem.
     
    Shivanand Kadwadkar, Dec 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Rich Webb Guest

    On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 03:21:45 -0800 (PST), Shivanand Kadwadkar
    <> wrote:

    >I have been searching the C99 complete standard but i am not able to
    >get it on internet.
    >
    >If anyone knows URL from where we can download please share it or
    >have a copy can you please send it to
    >me() if you dont have any problem.


    It's easy to find. Hop over to http://www.ansi.org and then use their
    search box for "9899" for The Real Thing (tm). Or, look over at
    http://www.iso-9899.info/wiki/The_Standard where in addition to the
    official release versions you can also find links for drafts which
    incorporate the base standard as a free download.

    --
    Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
     
    Rich Webb, Dec 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    John Bode Guest

    Re: Where to download C99 Standard

    On Dec 27, 5:21 am, Shivanand Kadwadkar
    <> wrote:
    > I have been searching the C99 complete standard but i am not able to
    > get it on internet.
    >
    > If anyone knows URL from where we can download  please share it or
    > have a copy can you please send it to
    > me() if you dont have any problem.


    A PDF of draft N1256 (C99 standard + technical correginda TC1, TC2,
    and TC3) can be found at

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

    AFAIK, this is the most up-to-date version available online (it is
    officially a working paper, but should be good enough for most
    purposes).
     
    John Bode, Dec 27, 2010
    #3
  4. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    tommy Guest

    Shivanand Kadwadkar typed...
    > I have been searching the C99 complete standard but i am not able to get
    > it on internet.
    >
    > If anyone knows URL from where we can download please share it or have
    > a copy can you please send it to me() if
    > you dont have any problem.


    if u do a search on bittorrent you can find a rar with ISO C90, ISO C99,
    and Kernerghan & Ritchy all in one archive, nice :)
     
    tommy, Dec 28, 2010
    #4
  5. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Walter Banks Guest

    tommy wrote:

    > if u do a search on . . . you can find a rar with ISO C90, ISO C99,
    > and Kernerghan & Ritchy all in one archive, nice :)


    Violating copyrights is illegal and hurts everyone.

    w..
     
    Walter Banks, Dec 28, 2010
    #5
  6. Shivanand Kadwadkar <> writes:
    > I have been searching the C99 complete standard but i am not able to
    > get it on internet.
    >
    > If anyone knows URL from where we can download please share it or
    > have a copy can you please send it to
    > me() if you dont have any problem.


    You cannot legally download the C99 standard itself without paying
    for it. Searching iso.ch for 9899 indicates that they charge CHF
    352.00 for a PDF copy of the C99 standard, which is exhorbitant.
    ANSI changes either $349 or $30, depending on which (presumably
    identical) version you want. (I paid $18 for my copy several years
    ago; $30 isn't too bad.) You might also try your own national
    standards body.

    However, the latest *draft* is available at no charge at
    <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf>.
    This includes the C99 standard with the three Technical Corrigenda
    merged into it; the changes are clearly marked with change bars, but
    the original unmodified text is not included. (The TCs themselves
    are available at no change from ansi.org.)

    For most purposes, n1256.pdf is *more* useful than the actual
    C99 standard.

    There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1516.pdf>, though
    I could have missed a more recent one. This is interesting if you
    want to see where the language is going in the future, but it has
    no current official status, and you won't find implementations that
    support the new features.

    --
    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, Dec 28, 2010
    #6
  7. On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    > There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    > upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    > [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.


    Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>

    I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    — conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    previously mandatory)"

    Francois Grieu
     
    Francois Grieu, Dec 29, 2010
    #7
  8. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 29/12/10 13:55, Francois Grieu a écrit :
    > On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    >> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    >> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

    >
    > Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    > <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >
    > I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    > as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    > — conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    > previously mandatory)"
    >
    > Francois Grieu


    Microsoft decided that automatically allocated tables were
    unnecessary.

    int fn(int n)
    {
    in table[n];
    }

    This feature of C99 is now optional thanks to (who else
    could have done that!) Plauger/Microsoft
     
    jacob navia, Dec 29, 2010
    #8
  9. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Le 29/12/10 13:55, Francois Grieu a écrit :
    >> On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    >>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    >>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

    >>
    >> Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    >> <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >>
    >> I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    >> as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    >> — conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    >> previously mandatory)"


    See n1547 section 6.10.8.3, "Conditional feature macros".

    > Microsoft decided that automatically allocated tables were
    > unnecessary.
    >
    > int fn(int n)
    > {
    > in table[n];
    > }
    >
    > This feature of C99 is now optional thanks to (who else
    > could have done that!) Plauger/Microsoft


    What makes you think Microsoft was responsible for this? I'm not
    saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in seeing some hard
    evidence. Microsoft apparently has (had?) no plans to support
    even C99; I wonder why they'd have so much influence over C201X.

    For those who don't want to download n1547.pdf, the list of conditional
    feature macros is:

    __STDC_ANALYZABLE__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate conformance to
    the specifications in annex L (Analyzability).

    __STDC_IEC_559__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate conformance
    to the specifications in annex F (IEC 60559 floating-point
    arithmetic).

    __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate adherence to
    the specifications in annex G (IEC 60559 compatible complex
    arithmetic).

    __STDC_LIB_EXT1__
    The integer constant 201ymmL, intended to indicate support
    for the extensions defined in annex K (Bounds-checking
    interfaces).

    __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    implementation does not support complex types or the
    <complex.h> header.

    __STDC_NO_THREADS__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    implementation does not support atomic types (including the
    _Atomic type qualifier and the <stdatomic.h> header) or the
    <threads.h> header.

    __STDC_NO_VLA__
    The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    implementation does not support variable length arrays or
    variably modified types.

    Of these, __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__ and __STDC_NO_VLA__ make existing
    mandatory C99 features optional in C201X. Personally, I don't see
    the point of either of these. They might save some relatively small
    amount of work for implementers, but I don't see that they do any
    good for programmers; neither feature should impose any significant
    overhead on programs that don't use it.

    --
    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, Dec 29, 2010
    #9
  10. On 29/12/2010 21:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
    > On 29/12/10 13:55, Francois Grieu wrote:

    <http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >>
    >> I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    >> as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    >> — conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    >> previously mandatory)"

    >
    > See n1547 section 6.10.8.3, "Conditional feature macros".

    (..)
    >
    > __STDC_ANALYZABLE__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate conformance to
    > the specifications in annex L (Analyzability).
    >
    > __STDC_IEC_559__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate conformance
    > to the specifications in annex F (IEC 60559 floating-point
    > arithmetic).
    >
    > __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate adherence to
    > the specifications in annex G (IEC 60559 compatible complex
    > arithmetic).
    >
    > __STDC_LIB_EXT1__
    > The integer constant 201ymmL, intended to indicate support
    > for the extensions defined in annex K (Bounds-checking
    > interfaces).
    >
    > __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    > implementation does not support complex types or the
    > <complex.h> header.
    >
    > __STDC_NO_THREADS__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    > implementation does not support atomic types (including the
    > _Atomic type qualifier and the <stdatomic.h> header) or the
    > <threads.h> header.
    >
    > __STDC_NO_VLA__
    > The integer constant 1, intended to indicate that the
    > implementation does not support variable length arrays or
    > variably modified types.
    >
    > Of these, __STDC_NO_COMPLEX__ and __STDC_NO_VLA__ make existing
    > mandatory C99 features optional in C201X. Personally, I don't see
    > the point of either of these. They might save some relatively small
    > amount of work for implementers, but I don't see that they do any
    > good for programmers; neither feature should impose any significant
    > overhead on programs that don't use it.


    Useful info. Thanks,

    Francois Grieu
     
    Francois Grieu, Dec 30, 2010
    #10
  11. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Francois Grieu
    <> writes
    >On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    >> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    >> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

    >
    >Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    ><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >
    >I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    >as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    >— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    > previously mandatory)"
    >
    > Francois Grieu



    For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
    dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
    from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 30, 2010
    #11
  12. Chris H <> writes:
    > In message <>, Francois Grieu
    > <> writes
    >>On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    >>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    >>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.

    >>
    >>Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    >><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >>
    >>I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    >>as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    >>— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    >> previously mandatory)"

    >
    > For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
    > dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
    > from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.


    I see some features being made optional. I don't see anything
    being dropped.

    Speaking only for myself, I was skeptical of your claims because I
    saw no independent evidence of them. Given the relative (but not
    complete) openness of the process, I would have expected to see
    some indication of such a radical change. (And again, if I recall
    correctly, what you were claiming would have been much more radical
    than what we're actually seeing in n1547.)

    Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
    significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
    existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

    --
    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, Dec 30, 2010
    #12
  13. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >
    > Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    > two C99 features that are being made optional?


    Because Microsoft vetoed them. They aren't in C++ and any
    independent development of a dead language like C is
    a bad idea according to Microsoft.

    > Does this really
    > significantly reduce the burden on implementers?


    Not at all.

    > Are there any
    > existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    > the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    > both VLAs and complex arithmetic?
    >


    VLAs can be easily implemented using alloca...

    C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.

    This individual (Plauger) was the most ardent defender of leaving
    asctime() with its buffer overflow, and has been a negative force
    in the development of anything useful in standard C for years.

    Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
    mainly for its big client, Microsoft, and it is the main force behind
    an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.

    At least that is the iumpression that I have after discussing the
    asctime() issue in comp.lang.c with him.

    In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
    (or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
    C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
    of C99, a proposal that was accepted.
     
    jacob navia, Dec 30, 2010
    #13
  14. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Seebs Guest

    On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    > two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
    > significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
    > existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    > the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    > both VLAs and complex arithmetic?


    I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
    that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
    to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
     
    Seebs, Dec 30, 2010
    #14
  15. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 30/12/10 20:21, Seebs a écrit :
    > On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson<> wrote:
    >> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    >> two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
    >> significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
    >> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    >> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    >> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

    >
    > I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
    > that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
    > to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?
    >
    > -s


    One: Microsoft corp. That is why they are optional now.
     
    jacob navia, Dec 30, 2010
    #15
  16. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    >> two C99 features that are being made optional?

    >
    > Because Microsoft vetoed them. They aren't in C++ and any
    > independent development of a dead language like C is
    > a bad idea according to Microsoft.


    Please provide concrete evidence that Microsoft vetoed these
    features. (Note that they're still in the language; they're merely
    optional.)

    >> Does this really
    >> significantly reduce the burden on implementers?

    >
    > Not at all.
    >
    >> Are there any
    >> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    >> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    >> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?
    >>

    >
    > VLAs can be easily implemented using alloca...


    Not really. Space allocated by alloca() is deallocated on return
    from the calling function. VLAs have automatic storage duration,
    and are deallocated on exit from the nearest enclosing block.
    (I hope lcc-win doesn't use alloca() to implement VLAs.)

    > C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.


    P.J. Plauger is not, and never has been, an employee of Microsoft.
    If you're saying that Plauger objected for reasons having to do
    with Microsoft, that may be true (can someone else comment?),
    but your statement implies more than that.

    > This individual (Plauger) was the most ardent defender of leaving
    > asctime() with its buffer overflow, and has been a negative force
    > in the development of anything useful in standard C for years.
    >
    > Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
    > mainly for its big client, Microsoft, and it is the main force behind
    > an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.
    >
    > At least that is the iumpression that I have after discussing the
    > asctime() issue in comp.lang.c with him.


    Citation, please?

    > In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
    > (or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
    > C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
    > of C99, a proposal that was accepted.


    As of the latest draft, two C99 features (is that "several"?) are being
    made optional, not "dismantled".

    Can someone please answer my original question (about the rationale
    for making VLAs and complex types optional in C201X) *without*
    engaging in personal attacks?

    --
    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, Dec 30, 2010
    #16
  17. jacob navia <> writes:
    > Le 30/12/10 20:21, Seebs a écrit :
    >> On 2010-12-30, Keith Thompson<> wrote:
    >>> Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    >>> two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
    >>> significantly reduce the burden on implementers? Are there any
    >>> existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    >>> the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    >>> both VLAs and complex arithmetic?

    >>
    >> I think the more interesting question would be, are there implementations
    >> that didn't bother to implement much of C99 *because* they didn't want
    >> to implement VLAs and/or complex arithmetic?

    >
    > One: Microsoft corp. That is why they are optional now.


    Can you provide independent evidence for this claim?

    --
    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, Dec 30, 2010
    #17
  18. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    > writes
    >Chris H <> writes:
    >> In message <>, Francois Grieu
    >> <> writes
    >>>On 28/12/2010 23:16, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>>> There are also some preliminary drafts of the
    >>>> upcoming C201X standard available. I think the latest is
    >>>> [n1516] though I could have missed a more recent one.
    >>>
    >>>Latest seems to be n1547, made 2010-12-02, posted 2010-12-03
    >>><http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG14/www/docs/n1547.pdf>
    >>>
    >>>I wonder what are the C99 features made non-mandatory in C201x,
    >>>as hinted by "Major changes from the previous edition include:
    >>>— conditional (optional) features (including some that were
    >>> previously mandatory)"

    >>
    >> For several years I have been saying that some C99 features would be
    >> dropped in the next standard and no one believed me. It all stemmed
    >> from the discussions at the end of the WG14 meeting in April 2007.

    >
    >I see some features being made optional. I don't see anything
    >being dropped.


    Semantics. If features no one is implementing are being made optional
    they are effectively dropped.

    >Speaking only for myself, I was skeptical of your claims because I
    >saw no independent evidence of them. Given the relative (but not
    >complete) openness of the process, I would have expected to see
    >some indication of such a radical change. (And again, if I recall
    >correctly, what you were claiming would have been much more radical
    >than what we're actually seeing in n1547.)


    Not everything is written down in the documents.

    >Drifting a bit, why are VLAs and complex arithmetic the only
    >two C99 features that are being made optional? Does this really
    >significantly reduce the burden on implementers?


    Probably not because most implementers did not bother with them

    > Are there any
    >existing implementations that (a) implement a substantial portion of
    >the features defined by C99 and not by C90, but (b) don't implement
    >both VLAs and complex arithmetic?


    Not sure, C99 implementation is very patchy

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 31, 2010
    #18
  19. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Chris H Guest

    In message <ifilmu$ipr$>, jacob navia
    <> writes
    >Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :
    >Yes, he wrote a C library ages ago. Now, he writes C++ libraries
    >mainly for its big client, Microsoft,


    There are other big clients... not all the world is a PC.

    > and it is the main force behind
    >an absolute conservatism in the C standards committee.


    The embedded community is generally conservative.

    >In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
    >(or similar if my memory serves). It is a pity that he stayed in the
    >C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
    >of C99, a proposal that was accepted.



    SO I was not the only one saying bits of C99 should be dropped....

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 31, 2010
    #19
  20. Shivanand Kadwadkar

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, Keith Thompson <kst-
    > writes
    >jacob navia <> writes:
    >> Le 30/12/10 20:02, Keith Thompson a écrit :

    >lock.
    >(I hope lcc-win doesn't use alloca() to implement VLAs.)
    >
    >> C++ doesn't have this feature, and Microsoft (Plauger) objected.

    >
    >P.J. Plauger is not, and never has been, an employee of Microsoft.
    >If you're saying that Plauger objected for reasons having to do
    >with Microsoft, that may be true (can someone else comment?),
    >but your statement implies more than that.


    As you say PJP is NOT an employee of MS. Whilst MS are a big customer of
    his so are most of the other high end compiler companies. Most of the
    others are in the embedded space and they are still on C90 (actually
    C95) and they want a compact C language that runs on MCU from 8-128
    bits. It is the 8 (and some 16) bit systems where they need to keep the
    language compact.

    BTW there are stil more 8 bit MCU used than the 16 and 31 bit MCU put
    together.

    >> In the last time he resigned from the C++ standards "steering" group
    >> (or similar if my memory serves).


    ISO-C++ Working Group. WG21

    >> It is a pity that he stayed in the
    >> C standards committee, and proposed to dismantle several features
    >> of C99, a proposal that was accepted.

    >
    >As of the latest draft, two C99 features (is that "several"?) are being
    >made optional, not "dismantled".


    Because the majority of the industry does not want/need them. There are
    a lot of problems in C99. They are trying fix them for C1*

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 31, 2010
    #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. Peng Yu
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    722
    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:
    1,398
    Simon Biber
    Jun 28, 2003
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,683
    Chris Torek
    Feb 20, 2006
  4. Rahul

    C99 standard anybody has?

    Rahul, Mar 14, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    665
    Randy Howard
    Mar 20, 2007
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    603
    Keith Thompson
    Mar 31, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page