jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) (12/13/86)
I would be interested in hearing answers to these questions from
people who have experience with other standardized languages (eg F77):
i) How long after the standard is put out does it take for
compilers to come out which support it?
ii) How long does it take for essentially ALL compilers to support
it; i.e., is it reasonable to expect to write a truly
portable program in ANSI C before 1990 or some such?
[ It occurs to me that there might be a lot of demand
for a compiler which compiles ANSI C into K&R C,
at least for the first few years. ]
Basically what I'm trying to get a feel for is this: ANSI C is
all fine and well, but how long before it can really be USED?
-- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
__@/nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) (12/13/86)
In article <1340@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech) writes: > i) How long after the standard is put out does it take for > compilers to come out which support it? Microsoft C v4.0 for the IBM PC family already includes essentially all of the proposed standard, and future releases are promised to be even closer. For all practical purposes, I'm using a compiler that conforms to the standard right now. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
grr@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (George Robbins) (12/15/86)
In article <1340@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@cit-vax.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes: > > I would be interested in hearing answers to these questions from >people who have experience with other standardized languages (eg F77): > > i) How long after the standard is put out does it take for > compilers to come out which support it? In the micro world, some compilers are already supporting many of the ANSI C features. Standards that effectively say 'these parts of the IBM Fortran Compiler are Standard' are obviously pretty quick acting. Others, like the Codasyl (?) COBOL group that work on future COBOL standards take years even to be felt. It should also be pointed out that despite all the fuss and bother, some well intentioned standards never really catch on in the real world. > ii) How long does it take for essentially ALL compilers to support > it; i.e., is it reasonable to expect to write a truly > portable program in ANSI C before 1990 or some such? A long, long time. It's not obvious how long it will take AT&T and Berkeley to adopt the new ANSI features, especially those that might break existing code (non-portable code in unix is more common than you might think). It can take a lot longer for the computer system vendors and other third parties that start with AT&T or BSD to get the stuff out to their customers. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
egsneb@killer.UUCP (Eric Schnoebelen) (01/27/88)
I'm having problems understanding a subtle point in the new ANSI standard
with respect to the handling of function prototypes and function declarations
using the old style argument declaration method. Note the following code
fragment:
void f(int,short,char);
void f(i,s,c)
int i;
short s;
char c;
{ ... }
Are the formal parameters s and c promoted to int? What if there were no
function prototype in scope, are they promoted then? How is this impacted
by the semantics of actual argument passing when no prototype is in scope?
Please relpy via email to killer!u-word!dfritz
David Fritz
Production Languages
1660 S. Stemmons
Ste 450.
Lewisville, Tx 75067
214-221-6756meissner@xyzzy.UUCP (Usenet Administration) (10/01/88)
In the latest C standards meeting, the X3J11 committee voted to submit the standard to it's parent body (X3) for approval as an official dpAns standard. It is anticipated that the final version with the editorial changes from the last meeting will be sent to X3 in December or January. If there are no changes from the X3 level review, the standard should be official in May or June as X3.159-1989. -- Michael Meissner, Data General. Uucp: ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!meissner Arpa: meissner@dg-rtp.DG.COM (or) meissner%dg-rtp.DG.COM@relay.cs.net
gwyn@smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/03/88)
In article <1330@xyzzy.UUCP> meissner@xyzzy.UUCP (Michael Meissner) writes: >In the latest C standards meeting, the X3J11 committee voted to submit >the standard to its parent body (X3) for approval as an official >dpAns standard. It is anticipated that the final version with the >editorial changes from the last meeting will be sent to X3 in December >or January. If there are no changes from the X3 level review, the >standard should be official in May or June as X3.159-1989. Here is a little more information: At the September 1988 X3J11 meeting, a number of editorial changes to the third public review draft were approved, but no substantive changes were made. Approval to submit the proposed ANS to X3 is contingent on review of the three official documents (Response to third public review, Standard, and Rationale), which will be in progress for the next couple of months. Submission of the final proposed Standard and Rationale documents, along with any replies by recipients of our official responses to third-round comments, to X3 should occur by 05-Dec-1988 if all goes well. Perhaps a note about "editorial" vs. "substantive" changes is in order, to forestall some possible complaints. A change was deemed "editorial" in nature if it served merely to clarify wording that could have been reasonably interpreted as meaning other than what the Committee had intended, so long as the previous intention of the Committee was preserved. On a couple of issues, the Committee had to settle whether a proposed change was editorial or substantive by voting on this question (if 1/3 of the voting members present thought a change was substantive, then it was taken to be so). We did vote whether or not to adopt some substantive changes, but there was not sufficient support for them to attain the 2/3 majority required for a substantive change to the proposed Standard. In fact, none of them even came close to that level of support; the Committee believed that the current specification is "good enough" for use as the official C Standard, and the editorial changes that were approved just serve to make the Committee's intentions clearer in a few places. In some cases, notably with respect to what a signal handler may safely do in a portable program, the clarification of intent may surprise someone who had not understood what actually had been intended (many believed the former wording to have been unambiguous, but not what we meant to say). Therefore, although the third public review draft Standard is substantially the same as the one being submitted for official approval, you should wait for the official Standard to see the exact wording before making any irreversible decisions based on it. Note that only Committee members participating in the final document review will really know the exact wording that gets sent to X3; some of the approved "editorial" changes may in fact not be made, depending on the judgement of the reviewers. I had reservations about this, but since I'm reviewing two of the three documents (and will have input to the third), I should be able to satisfy myself that nothing gets broken at the last minute. We'll see... P.S. (for those of you who can't tell the difference) This is yet another posting that is NOT an official X3J11 statement.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/10/88)
In article <8600@smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >... Submission of the final >proposed Standard and Rationale documents, along with any replies >by recipients of our official responses to third-round comments, >to X3 should occur by 05-Dec-1988 if all goes well. Given that that's only two months away, I *trust* an effort is going to be made to get those official responses out to the recipients *PROMPTLY*?? The propagation delay last time was measured in months! (Sigh, I know it's not your fault, Doug, but I sure would be happy to hear that *something* has been done to avoid a repetition of last time's fiasco.) -- The meek can have the Earth; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
cmaz514@ut-emx.UUCP (04/14/90)
Where can I get a copy of the final ANSI Standard for C. I would prefer a hard copy if available. I have seen books with the new standard, but I have no desire to pay $30 to learn C again; I just want the new rules. Please e-mail the answer unless you think there is a great deal of interest in this. Thanks in advance.