From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <35E81634-8169-4E42-950D-612836BC6668@gmail.com> From: Charlie Lin Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:14:12 -0500 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07d4f254c677054174e82c Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 5th Edition Topicbox-Message-UUID: abfc274e-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --94eb2c07d4f254c677054174e82c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I have the ANSI X3.159-1989 (C89), the ISO/IEC 9989:1990 (C90) (ANSI version) and ISO/IEC 9989:1999 (C99). The first one I found it at the National Technical Reports Library. The other two I do not know where I obtained them but I know they are on the Internet, as final standards, not drafts. On Nov 16, 2016 7:35 PM, "James A. Robinson" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM Chris McGee wrote: > >> A C compiler that supports the latest spec would be nice as long as it >> doesn't sacrifice compile times. I like how quickly the system can >> recompile itself. Maybe extend pcc to include new features? >> > > I'll admit to never having paid much attention to the changing > specification for C. By latest spec you're referring to C11? I recall a > coworker pointing me at http://www.tinycc.org/ awhile ago, and looking at > the page today it says it mostly implements the previous C99 specification > > It claims to be small, mostly compliant to C99 ("Currently missing items > are: complex and imaginary numbers and variable length arrays."), and fast. > But it isn't under development by the original author any more. > > Jim > > --94eb2c07d4f254c677054174e82c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have the ANSI X3.159-1989 (C89), the ISO/IEC 9989:1990 (C9= 0) (ANSI version) and ISO/IEC 9989:1999 (C99).

The first one I found it at the National Technical Reports L= ibrary. The other two I do not know where I obtained them but I know they a= re on the Internet, as final standards, not drafts.


On Nov 16, 2016 7= :35 PM, "James A. Robinson" <jimr@highwire.org> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:54 PM Chris McGee <newton688@gmail.com> wrote:
A C compiler that supports the l= atest spec would be nice as long as it doesn't sacrifice compile times.= I like how quickly the system can recompile itself. Maybe extend pcc to in= clude new features?

=
I'll admit to never having paid much attention to the changing sp= ecification for C. By latest spec you're referring to C11? I recall a = coworker pointing me at http://www.tinycc.org/ awhile ago, and looking at the page today it s= ays it mostly implements the previous C99 specification

It claims to be small, mo= stly compliant to C99 ("Currently missing items are: complex and imagi= nary numbers and variable length arrays."), and fast. But it isn'= t under development by the original author any more.

Jim

--94eb2c07d4f254c677054174e82c--