Re: Opinions about a book

santosh <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> santosh <santosh.k83@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
<snip>
>>> 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
<snip>
>>> 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.
<snip>
> Yes, Good idea. I'll post anything I find in due course.

I am quite impressed (with one tiny exception).  I tested the following
unlisted features:

 * long long int
 * long double
 * // comments
 * void f(int a[static 1]); 
 * Variable arg macros
 * Trailing , in enum
 * __func__
 * Correct scoping of variable declared in a "for" statement.

All seem OK at first glance.  A couple of tricky-to-parse compound
literal expressions also pass (I would have been surprised if they had
not).

I did not test any library issues, since I think my icc install uses
the existing C library, but all the right headers seem to be there.

The only problem so far is that this compilation unit:

main(void){}

compiles with no diagnostic (flags: icc -std=c99 -strict-ansi -Wall).
Surely one is now required in C99 due to the removal of implicit int?

It seems they've done most of the hard stuff.  If I get time, I'll do
a few more "feature tests" (none of the above tests that the features
really work as they should -- only that there seems to some sup****t
for it).

-- 
Ben.