Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Segments Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:36:45 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <2024Oct6.150415@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Jan3.093849@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Jan5.121028@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2025Jan6.092443@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <87cygo97dl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250115140026.00003f4f@yahoo.com> <20250115222824.000034d6@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:36:46 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2918de53a5f9f60dfa48430944162c87"; logging-data="3670248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5sSQ9uNhZOOP4U53BFhg+OtZAR89bUOc=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:0avVVWfw4tqh/STNIkQ4I8sceHw= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5128 On 15/01/2025 21:59, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Michael S schrieb: >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:00:34 -0000 (UTC) >> Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >>> Michael S schrieb: >>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:09:38 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Thomas Koenig wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keith Thompson schrieb: >>>>>> Thomas Koenig writes: >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> CHERY targets C, which on the one hand, I understand (there's a >>>>>>> ton of C code out there), but trying to retrofit a safe memory >>>>>>> model onto C seems a bit awkward - it might have been better to >>>>>>> target a language which has arrays in the first place, unlike >>>>>>> C. >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> C does have arrays. >>>>> >>>>> Sort of - they decay into pointers at first sight. >>>>> >>>>> But what I should have written was "multi-dimensional arrays", >>>>> with a reasonable way of handling them. >>>> >>>> C language always had multi-dimensional arrays, with limitation that >>>> dimensions have to be known in compile time. >>>> C99 lifted that limitation, making C support for multi-dimensional >>>> arrays comparable to that in old Fortran. >>>> C11 said that lifting is optional. >>>> Now C23 makes part of the lifting (variably-modified types) again >>>> mandatory. >>> >>> I'd missed that one. >>> >>>> Relatively to F90, support for multi-dimensional arrays in C23 is >>>> primitive. >>> >>> From what you describe, support for multi-dimensional arrays >>> in C23 now reached the level of Fortran II, released in >>> 1958. Only a bit more than six decades, can't complain >>> about that. >> >> Well, apart from playing with what is mandatory and what is not, arrays >> stuff in C had not changed (AFAIK) since C99. > > It's not mandatory, so compilers are free to ignore it (and a > major compiler, from a certain company in Redmond, does > not support it). That's as good as sayhing that it does not > exist in the language. Not really, no. The world of C programmers can be divided into those that work with C compilers and can freely use pretty much anything in C, and those that have to content with limited, non-standard or otherwise problematic compilers and write code that works for them. Such compilers include embedded toolchains for very small microcontrollers or DSPs, and MS's C compiler. Some C code needs to be written in a way that works on MS's C compiler as well as other tools, but most is free from such limitations. Even for those targeting Windows, it's common to use clang or gcc for serious C coding. MS used to have a long-term policy of specifically not supporting C well because that might make it easier for people to write cross-platform C code for Windows and Linux. Instead, they preferred to push developers towards C# and Windows-only programming - or if that failed, C++ which was not as commonly used on *nix. Now, I think, they just don't care much about C - they don't see many people using their tools for C and haven't bothered supporting any feature that needs much effort. They know that they can't catch up with other C compilers, so have made it easier to integrate clang with their IDE's and development tools.