Re: Opinions about a book

Keith Thompson wrote:

> santosh <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> santosh <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> The Comeau compiler in combination with the Dinkumware C99 library
>>>> is probably a fully conforming hosted implementation. I don't know
>>>> whether that's the only one. I've heard that the Solaris C compiler
>>>> is also a full C99 hosted implementation. Intel and gcc have
>>>> implemented about 90% of C99.
>>> 
>>> According to
>>> <http://www.intel.com/sup****t/performancetools/c/sb/cs-015003.htm>:
>>> 
>>>     The Intel(R) C++ Compiler conforms to the ANSI/ISO standard
>>>     ISO/IEC 9899:1999 for C language.
>>
>> But their do***entation (which you can access after you install it)
>> seems to suggest otherwise. For example the following is a quotation
>> from the compiler manual for version 10.1.015 (Linux) over here:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> Conformance to the C Standard
>>
>> The Intel® C++ Compiler provides conformance to the ANSI/ISO standard
>> for C language compilation (ISO/IEC 9899:1990). This standard
>> requires that conforming C compilers accept minimum translation
>> limits. This compiler exceeds all of the ANSI/ISO requirements for
>> minimum translation limits.
>> C99 Sup****t
>>
>> The following C99 features are sup****ted in this version of the Intel
>> C++ Compiler:
>>
>>     * restricted pointers (restrict keyword).
>>     * variable-length Arrays
>>     * flexible array members
>>     * complex number sup****t (_Complex keyword)
>>     * hexadecimal floating-point constants
>>     * compound literals
>>     * designated initializers
>>     * mixed declarations and code
>>     * macros with a variable number of arguments
>>     * inline functions (inline keyword)
>>     * boolean type (_Bool keyword)
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> So as you can see Intel's C99 sup****t seems to be less complete than
>> gcc.
> 
> Or perhaps the do***entation is out of sync with the compiler.

It would be amazing for a company with the resources that Intel has to
fail to update the do***entation for one of their im****tant software.

> Suggestion: Write a few small programs that use C99-specific features
> that aren't in that list, and see if Intel's compiler can handle them.
> If not, complain to Intel (there's a "Contact us" link on the web page
> I cited above).  And if it does, tell them to update their feature
> list, or just replace it with a conformance statement.

Yes, Good idea. I'll post anything I find in due course.

> I'd do it myself, but I don't have the Intel compiler (yes, I know
> it's a free download, I just haven't gotten around to it).

It's not as easy to install as say lcc-win, but it's easier than
compiling gcc from source. The frustrating bit is registering and
getting a license.

Intel advertises the Linux version of their C compiler as a "drop-in
replacement" for gcc, but that's not quite true as it does not
recognise some commandline options sup****ted by gcc like -W
(or -Wextra), -pedantic etc.