Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What is wrong with malloc?
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 13:41:43 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <87ldvlq8yw.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vljvh3$27msl$1@dont-email.me> <vlle1n$2n1b0$1@dont-email.me>
	<vlm2tg$2dkpd$3@dont-email.me> <vlm8gd$2rfbl$2@dont-email.me>
	<vlma2d$2qolo$1@dont-email.me>
	<8734htrrbe.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vlmn36$2u3c1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 22:41:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="78dde0aa8fcfd62296c6657e38e15b03";
	logging-data="3093577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JofPMSZaipKsUAhceDvj+"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jYAvmf2jtW5AD8NQPA5O3rg69eA=
	sha1:fjKjpTDUBZwjKrntmIk13yX52sw=
Bytes: 2329

Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:
> On 1/8/25 3:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> C89 and C90 are better for 8-bit systems then C99 and newer. Not that
>>> you can't do 8-bit on C99 but it's just not designed as well for it
>>> since C99 assumes you've moved on to at least 16-bit.
>> There were no changes in the sizes of the integer types from C89/C90
>> to
>> C99, aside from the addition of long long.  (And an implementation with
>> 8-bit int would be non-conforming under any edition of the standard,
>> though it might be useful.)
>
>> Perhaps some C89/C90 implementations are better for 8-bit systems than
>> some C90 implementations?
>
> Yes, this is what I was saying.

I'm curious about the details.  What C89/C90 implementation are
you using, and what features make it more suitable for 8-bit
systems?  (Any useful extensions could be applied to a C99 or
later implementation.  It sounds like the implementer just hasn't
done that.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */