Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: What is wrong with malloc? (Was: So You Think You Can Const?)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:28:25 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <vlopup$3dr6p$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <vlo03n$2dkpc$6@dont-email.me> <vloleg$3cnll$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:28:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="90fe8b923f7e0b80b300a892eafa8c89";
	logging-data="3599577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wcyxCUe/gY74+rtnkntsY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5pURzLvwtVo94G9xhSiBqK16iNE=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vloleg$3cnll$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2769

On 09/01/2025 14:11, David Brown wrote:
> On 09/01/2025 09:07, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> On 08/01/2025 17:18, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/01/2025 15:42, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>   So you can be confident that almost anyone using your software in 
>>> embedded systems will be using a 32-bit core - most likely an ARM 
>>> Cortex-M, but possibly RISC-V.  And they will probably be using a 
>>> toolchain that supports at least C17 (some people are still on older 
>>> toolchains), whether it is gcc, clang, or commercial.   Certainly 
>>> solid C99 support is guaranteed.  Everything else is niche, and no 
>>> one will be using your software on niche systems.
>>
>> Even my fridge should be able to run it...  I am writing a Prolog 
>> compiler, but more generally I'd be mostly writing algorithms-data 
>> structures things.
>>
>> That said, one thing nobody has been explaining is why C99 is superior 
>> to C89/C90, except for some coding conveniences as far as I have read 
>> online: and I must say here that I do prefer the good old ways, 
>> including style-wise, in most cases...
>>
> 
> The C99 features that I consider to make code easier to write, clearer, 
> safer, more portable, more efficient, and generally better are:
> 
>      compound literals
>      designated initialisers
>      mixing declaration and code
>      variadic macros

Funny, I usually find code using such features less clear!

They would also make programs a little less portable, since they now 
rely on an implementation that includes support.