5 ms·

I suspect that C11 support is closer than C99 support (and it would be good too). Things like variable length arrays are now optional.

cygx 15y ago
There are exactly 2 features which were mandatory in C99 and are optional in C11: variable-length arrays and complex types. C11 adds some non-optional features whch needs compiler support (alignment specifiers, type-generic selections, unicode literals, ...). Do you really think vendors which don' care about C99 will suddenly jump to implement all mandatory C11 features?
- BudVVeezer 15y ago
  Since it means not having to support VLAs, yes.
  - nknight 15y ago
    One is not obligated to support all features of a standard in order to support some, a reality Microsoft has consistently availed itself of during its existence.
    - BudVVeezer 15y ago
      So by your standards, Microsoft is doing quite well. After all, they do support parts of C99 such as stdint.h.
      - nknight 15y ago
        You really have no idea what my standards are. All I did was say they didn't have to support VLAs to support other parts of C99. That tells you absolutely nothing, stop assuming so much.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
maximilianburke 15y ago
I don't think VLAs would be that difficult to support as the underlying functionality (alloca) is already implemented by the compiler.
- nknight 15y ago
  It's a matter of sanity, not difficulty. VLAs are not well-loved by many of the same people who write the compilers.
  - cygx 15y ago
    Perl Philosphy is simply to torment the implementors on behalf of the user -- Larry Wall Look at the C99 rationale: The inability to declare arrays whose size is known only at execution time was often cited as a primary deterrent to using C as a numerical computing language. That's also the main reason for the introduction of complex types and type-generic math functions. It's not as if the C committee got together and thought "Hey, what can we do to piss off compiler writers?" - there was actual demand for these features! Sure, it made language semantics messier (runtime evaluation of sizeof, introduction of variably-modified types restricted to block or prototype scope, magical macros for math functions - which has been fixed with C11, btw), but C99 is indeed a superior language than C90 for doing numerics.
    - nknight 15y ago
      I don't dispute for a moment that some people wanted VLAs or that they're useful in some contexts. On the other hand, your cited field is relatively small, and the use case could have been satisfied with a mechanism much more in line with the existing language. In fact, we've de-facto had such a mechanism for decades, but it hasn't been codified anywhere, actually for some of the same reasons people don't appreciate VLAs, but it at least rests much more comfortably with the rest of the language. At some point, you go from enhancing C to breaking it in the interests of a small minority (who apparently don't want to use Fortran?). VLAs are, if not over the line, right on it.
      - 15y ago

cygx 15y ago

There are exactly 2 features which were mandatory in C99 and are optional in C11: variable-length arrays and complex types. C11 adds some non-optional features whch needs compiler support (alignment specifiers, type-generic selections, unicode literals, ...). Do you really think vendors which don' care about C99 will suddenly jump to implement all mandatory C11 features?

BudVVeezer 15y ago
Since it means not having to support VLAs, yes.
- nknight 15y ago
  One is not obligated to support all features of a standard in order to support some, a reality Microsoft has consistently availed itself of during its existence.
  - BudVVeezer 15y ago
    So by your standards, Microsoft is doing quite well. After all, they do support parts of C99 such as stdint.h.
    - nknight 15y ago
      You really have no idea what my standards are. All I did was say they didn't have to support VLAs to support other parts of C99. That tells you absolutely nothing, stop assuming so much.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

maximilianburke 15y ago

I don't think VLAs would be that difficult to support as the underlying functionality (alloca) is already implemented by the compiler.

nknight 15y ago
It's a matter of sanity, not difficulty. VLAs are not well-loved by many of the same people who write the compilers.
- cygx 15y ago
  Perl Philosphy is simply to torment the implementors on behalf of the user -- Larry Wall Look at the C99 rationale: The inability to declare arrays whose size is known only at execution time was often cited as a primary deterrent to using C as a numerical computing language. That's also the main reason for the introduction of complex types and type-generic math functions. It's not as if the C committee got together and thought "Hey, what can we do to piss off compiler writers?" - there was actual demand for these features! Sure, it made language semantics messier (runtime evaluation of sizeof, introduction of variably-modified types restricted to block or prototype scope, magical macros for math functions - which has been fixed with C11, btw), but C99 is indeed a superior language than C90 for doing numerics.
  - nknight 15y ago
    I don't dispute for a moment that some people wanted VLAs or that they're useful in some contexts. On the other hand, your cited field is relatively small, and the use case could have been satisfied with a mechanism much more in line with the existing language. In fact, we've de-facto had such a mechanism for decades, but it hasn't been codified anywhere, actually for some of the same reasons people don't appreciate VLAs, but it at least rests much more comfortably with the rest of the language. At some point, you go from enhancing C to breaking it in the interests of a small minority (who apparently don't want to use Fortran?). VLAs are, if not over the line, right on it.
    - 15y ago