C23 Implications for C Libraries

Post by hutrdvnj » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 5:03 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #67

vbtemp wrote: post #44

I have a question I've always wanted to know but too embarrassed to ask (Especially because I've extensively used C for well over a decade now and am intimately familiar with it): Who exactly are these new C-standards for? I interact and use C on an almost daily basis. But almost always ANSI C (and sometimes C99). This is because every platform, architecture, etc has at least an ANSI C compiler in common so it serves…

> Who exactly are these new C-standards for? For me and for many colleagues in my lab? C is quite big in scientific computing and signal processing. Fortran would be slightly better, and it is widely used, but not directly around me. The C99 standard, which added complex numbers and variable length arrays, was truly a godsend in the field. I cannot imagine working without it. If you write a numerical algorithm that n…

Post by attractivechaos » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

acuozzo wrote: post #51

vbtemp wrote: post #44

I have a question I've always wanted to know but too embarrassed to ask (Especially because I've extensively used C for well over a decade now and am intimately familiar with it): Who exactly are these new C-standards for? I interact and use C on an almost daily basis. But almost always ANSI C (and sometimes C99). This is because every platform, architecture, etc has at least an ANSI C compiler in common so it serves…

> Who exactly are these new C-standards for? An example: The C11 memory model + + many compilers supporting C11 has/had a positive impact on language runtimes. Portable CAS! > If your team is up-to-date enough to quickly adopt C23, then why not just use Rust or (heaven forbid, C++23)? Another example: If you're programming e.g. non-internet-connected atomic clocks with weather sensors like those produced by La Crosse…

Post by jabl » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

Bhurn00985 wrote: post #66

davidtgoldblatt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My usages are similar to yours, but new C standards still benefit me because I can opportunistically detect and make use of new features in a configure script. To use my baby as an example: free_sized(void *ptr, size_t alloc_size) is new in C23. I can detect whether or not it's available and use it if so. If it's not available, I can just fall back to free() and get the same semantics, at some performance or safety c…

I don't fully understand the need or benefit of having free_sized() available tbh. Spec says it's functionally equivalent to free(ptr) or undefined: If ptr is a null pointer or the result obtained from a call to malloc, realloc, or calloc, where size size is equal to the requested allocation size, this function is equivalent to free(ptr). Otherwise, the behavior is undefined Even the recommended practice does not rea…

Post by jwilk » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #3

The page gives a network error. Edit: Ugh, it needs javascript to render simple HTML.

Post by anfilt » Mon, Nov 21, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #58

vbtemp wrote: post #44

I have a question I've always wanted to know but too embarrassed to ask (Especially because I've extensively used C for well over a decade now and am intimately familiar with it): Who exactly are these new C-standards for? I interact and use C on an almost daily basis. But almost always ANSI C (and sometimes C99). This is because every platform, architecture, etc has at least an ANSI C compiler in common so it serves…

In my case: because writing C code (specifically C99 or later - designated init and compound literals!) gives me joy in a way that neither C++ nor Rust provide (C++ was my go-to language for nearly two decade between ca. 1998 and 2017), and I tinkered with Rust a couple of years ago, enough that I realized that I don't much enjoy it. IMHO, both C++ and Rust feel too much like puzzle solving ("how do I solve this prob…