C99 is widely used!

[Seebs]

Seebs a écrit :

OK. If you do not want the newer version do not use it. But then, please
do not complain that the compiler has no C99 support!

I don't think this is a reasonable attitude to take.

If you need to use a stable version, and the stable version that you've done
all your validation on has no C99 support, then C99 support is not yet
available to you.

That said, I think it's much more important to find out whether the claim of
C99 support is intended to be part of the same claim as the 100% conformance
claim, and how much that's affected by the possible decision to declare it a
"freestanding" implementation.

-s

 

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins a écrit :

He didn't. He correctly stated that version 4 of their complier doesn't
support C99.

You should retract your false claim.

I claim that telling

"My version of Green Hills compiler doesn't support C99" to a reader that
doesn't know the context means that there is no C99 support in those
compilers

The upgrade to C99 is 3 years old according to an official announcement of
Green Hills software. He did NOT SAY THAT, and that omission is an implicit
lie, as with heathfield, that says "it doesn't compile in my version of gcc"
without saying that is version is from 9 years ago!

 

[Keith Thompson]

Ian Collins a écrit :

I claim that telling

"My version of Green Hills compiler doesn't support C99" to a reader that
doesn't know the context means that there is no C99 support in those
compilers

Stop using quotation marks until you understand what they mean.

gwowen did *not* write "My version of Green Hills compiler doesn't
support C99". By writing that in quotation marks, you strongly imply
that it's a direct quotation. I'm not going to say you're lying, but
you are misstating the facts.

In Message-ID
in the thread "Scope of a variable declared in for loop", he actually wrote:

| Green Hills compiler 424 for ARM9 does not support that extension.
| TI's compiler for their Piccolo DSP does not support that extension.
|
| I use both of these these frequently. These compilers are not for
| outmoded valve powered mainframes -- ARM9's are pretty much the most
| ubiquitous microprocessors in the world. You probably have one or two
| about your immediate person.
|
| Do you ever write code for non-desktop machines?

The "extension" in question was the use of declarations in for
statements, such as:

for(int i=100;i>=0;i--);

The upgrade to C99 is 3 years old according to an official announcement of
Green Hills software. He did NOT SAY THAT, and that omission is an implicit
lie, as with heathfield, that says "it doesn't compile in my version of gcc"
without saying that is version is from 9 years ago!

An implicit lie? What??

jacob, seriously, you need to calm down, and you need to stop
calling people liars. There is no conspiracy. This isn't about you.
gwowen made a true and relevant statement; it is not any kind of lie,
implicit or otherwise. You owe him an apology. (You also owe me a
few; you've falsely accused me of lying on more than one occasion.)
I don't seriously expect such apologies to be forthcoming, but
*please* stop and think about what you're saying.

 

[Ian Collins]

Ian Collins a écrit :

I claim that telling

"My version of Green Hills compiler doesn't support C99" to a reader that
doesn't know the context means that there is no C99 support in those
compilers

He said "Green Hills Compiler 424" does not support those C99 features.
That's pretty explicit to me. If I were to say "gcc version 2 does
not support C99 features", would you claim that I'm saying "gcc does not
support C99 features"?

The upgrade to C99 is 3 years old according to an official announcement of
Green Hills software. He did NOT SAY THAT, and that omission is an
implicit lie,

Nonsense. I've made no mention of the weather here, does that mean I've
implicitly lied about it?

 

[Rob Kendrick]

If you need to use a stable version, and the stable version that
you've done all your validation on has no C99 support, then C99
support is not yet available to you.

And in fact in many situations, the compiler used is checked into
version control along with the software it is used to compile.

B.

 

[Rob Kendrick]

The upgrade to C99 is 3 years old according to an official
announcement of Green Hills software. He did NOT SAY THAT, and that
omission is an implicit lie, as with heathfield, that says "it
doesn't compile in my version of gcc" without saying that is version
is from 9 years ago!

Of course, not all platforms that GH 4 supported is supported by CH 5.
And that includes certain flavours of ARM.

B.

 

[Nick Keighley]

in the last year I've made a mod to a K&R program. I'd never actaully
used K&R before. I think the chances of many thousands of lines of
code being converted even to C89 is pretty slim!

<snip>

 

[Flash Gordon]

in the last year I've made a mod to a K&R program. I'd never actaully
used K&R before. I think the chances of many thousands of lines of
code being converted even to C89 is pretty slim!

It happens. I've converted program which was many thousands of lines of
C from K&R to C90, and I've probably got it up to C99 now (not making
use of it, but valid as C99). I even converted it to using prototypes
(not available in K&R) which made the compiler point out a number of
bugs which were in the code.