I've started working with Turbo C 2.01 as a hobby project. Yes, the DOS version. Since it came out in 1987, I assume it doesn't support C90... except it does. Well, pieces of it. The volatile keyword works. And straight K&R isn't supported; I tried K&R style declarations, to an error.
So, I was wondering what form of C Turbo C uses. I'm sure it's nonstandard, but it seems somewhat consistent, and since this was a very popular compiler back in the day, I'm sure there's some collection of information... right?
There was no real standard back then, and additionally MS-DOS had its own quirks (namely the segmented memory model, and different application memory models using them differently...).
So I think it's safe to say, Turbo C 2.01 uses Turbo C 2.01 dialect of C.
About supporting C90, note that the standard obviously did its best to have existing C code be compatible with it. So it's not surprising Turbo C from 87 can build most C90 programs with minimal changes.
According to wikipedia, original K&R non standard spec came out in 78. The starting point of the ANSI X3J11 committee that produced the ANSI C89 standard is 1983, and the goal was
to establish a standard specification of C. X3J11 based the C standard on the Unix implementation.
That standard was then adopted by ISO as C90. But as it was extensively based on an existing implementation, the extensions from this implementation were already ported in other implementations like Borland's one.
So there is no real suprise that Borland C2.01 from 87 already includes most of the extensions to K&R C that has been adopted in standard only 2 years later.
Related
Why not all the standard headers are preceded with std prefix? I.e. why complex.h and not stdcomplex.h?
Why? why not? Who knows? The header files that make up the standard libraries began evolving into that category before a standard existed, over years of revisions by developers and scrutiny by C committee members. Many of the original authors and committee members who developed and canonized these files are now part of the big compiler in the sky and not available to answer the question "why" the standard naming convention is not really conventional or standard. But reading this wiki page on the topic may at least allow you to get a little history and context.
The naming has historically nothing to do with formal ISO standardization and I don't think there ever was an ambition to toss std in front of everything standard library.
Earliest mention of a standard library seems to be K&R The C programming Language 1st edition from 1978, where below chapter 8.5 we can read:
The data structure that describes a file is contained in the file stdio.h, which must be included (by #include) in any source file that uses routines from the standard library.
Notably K&R refers to it as the standard library, not the standard input/output library. So maybe (and this is speculation) this header was originally intended to be the whole standard library for C. This is the only one of the current ISO standard library headers I can find mentioned in the book and it pre-dates formal standardization by more than ten years.
Then later during ANSI/ISO standardization the headers stdarg, stddef, stdio and stdlib were added to the first standard, but these are just 4 out of 15 standard headers using the std prefix. Various C or Unix de-facto standard headers just got added to the standard pretty much arbitrary. There was no sound rationale for anything, least of all API or naming. They just tossed in various already present "good to have" Unix libs into the standard.
Notably, the original C standard only guaranteed 6 unique letters for standard headers and all the original headers have names with 6 or less letters. This was expanded to 8 letters in C99.
C99 continued the tradition of arbitrary naming, adding a whole bunch of new headers, of which only stdint and stdbool have the std prefix. That C11 named most new headers with std prefix might be some influence from C++, but notably C11 also added uchar.h without prefix.
I was reading "The C programming language by Dennis Ritchie" and in the very beginning
it demonstrates a code i.e the following
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("Hello, World");
}
according to the book this code should work just fine. However, when i compile this code it generates an error demanding me to make the main return type specifically "int" type. even making it void gives compiling error. Why is that? Its really bugging me. I thought since the book is authored by the creator of the language it would be accurate, i guess not...
Im running it on Unix FreeBSD 10.0
That book was written decades ago, and the language has moved on quite a bit since then.
Even the edition that covered ANSI C (the predecessor being K&R) is well out of date. It covered C89/90 and we've since had C99 and C11.
There may well be compilers that use the older iteration of the standard (such as for some embedded systems) but that's not the case for the compiler you're using, at least with the options you have.
If you want to learn the current language, I suggest you choose a more up-to-date book.
This question already has answers here:
Writing a compiler in its own language
(14 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
This question may stem from a misunderstanding of compilers on my part, but here goes...
One can find the following statement in the preface to the first edition of K&R (page xi):
The operating system, the C compiler, and essentially all UNIX applications programs (including all of the software used to prepare this book) are written in C.
(my emphasis)
Here's what I don't understand: doesn't that C compiler have to be compiled itself before it can compile any C code? And if that C compiler is written in C, wouldn't compiling it require an already existing C compiler?!
The only way out of this infinite-regression conundrum (or chicken-and-egg problem) is that the C compiler written in C that K&R are referring to was actually compiled with an already existing C compiler that was written in a language other than C. The C compiler written in C then superseded the latter.
Or am I completely off?
It's called Bootstrapping, quoting from Wikipedia:
If one needs a compiler for language X to obtain a compiler for language X (which is written in language X), how did the first compiler get written? Possible methods to solving this chicken or the egg problem include:
Implementing an interpreter or compiler for language X in language
Y. Niklaus Wirth reported that he wrote the first Pascal compiler in
Fortran.
Another interpreter or compiler for X has already been written in
another language Y; this is how Scheme is often bootstrapped.
Earlier versions of the compiler were written in a subset of X for
which there existed some other compiler; this is how some supersets
of Java, Haskell, and the initial Free Pascal compiler are
bootstrapped.
The compiler for X is cross compiled from another architecture where
there exists a compiler for X; this is how compilers for C are
usually ported to other platforms. Also this is the method used for
Free Pascal after the initial bootstrap.
Writing the compiler in X; then hand-compiling it from source (most
likely in a non-optimized way) and running that on the code to get
an optimized compiler. Donald Knuth used this for his WEB literate
programming system.
And if you are interested, here is Dennis Richie's first C compiler source.
Usually, a first compiler is written in another language (directly in PDP11 assembler in this case, or in C for most of the "modern" languages). Then, this first compiler is used to program a compiler written in the language itself.
You can read this page about the history of the C language. You will see that it is also strongly linked to the UNIX system.
See the Chicken and Egg section of the Wikipedia page:
If one needs a compiler for language X to obtain a compiler for language X (which is written in language X), how did the first compiler get written? Possible methods to solving this chicken or the egg problem include:
Implementing an interpreter or compiler for language X in language Y. Niklaus Wirth reported that he wrote the first Pascal compiler in Fortran.
Another interpreter or compiler for X has already been written in another language Y; this is how Scheme is often bootstrapped.
Earlier versions of the compiler were written in a subset of X for which there existed some other compiler; this is how some supersets of Java, Haskell, and the initial Free Pascal compiler are bootstrapped.
The compiler for X is cross compiled from another architecture where there exists a compiler for X; this is how compilers for C are usually ported to other platforms. Also this is the method used for Free Pascal after the initial bootstrap.
Writing the compiler in X; then hand-compiling it from source (most likely in a non-optimized way) and running that on the code to get an optimized compiler. Donald Knuth used this for his WEB literate programming system.
It's perfectly ordinary for a compiler to be written in the language it compiles. One way to achieve this would be to write a complete compiler for language L in some other language, and then to write a new compiler for L in L. A more interesting approach would be to write a minimal compiler for a subset of L in some other language, and then use this minimal subset to improve the compiler, making it less minimal increasing the available subset of L. In this way, a complete compiler can be built.
I have started programming practice on codechef and have been confused by the difference between C and C99. What does C mean here? Is it C89? Check the languages at the bottom of this submit. It contains both C and C99.
I found on the internet something called GNU C. Is there a different C for linux/unix systems? Are these compliant to the C standards by ANSI? I have also read in some places "C99 strict". What is this?
Are there any other different standards of C in use? Is there something called C 4.3.2 or is it the gcc version in current use?
EDIT:
This, This, This helped. I'll search more and edit the things that are left unanswered.
I am not a programming newbie. I know what C language is. I know that there are the different C standards by ANSI like C89, C99 and C11.
Everything before standardization is generally called "K&R C", after the famous book (1st edition and 2nd edition), with Dennis Ritchie, the inventor of the C language, as one of the authors. This was "the C language" from 1972-1989.
The first C standard was released 1989 nationally in USA, by their national standard institute ANSI. This release is called C89 or ANSI-C. From 1989-1990 this was "the C language".
The year after, the American standard was accepted internationally and published by ISO (ISO 9899:1990). This release is called C90. Technically, it is the same standard as C89/ANSI-C. Formally, it replaced C89/ANSI-C, making them obsolete. From 1990-1999, C90 was "the C language".
Please note that since 1989, ANSI haven't had anything to do with the C language, other than as one of many instances working on the ISO standard. It is nowadays done in USA through INCITS and the C standard is formally called INCITS/ISO/IEC 9899 in USA. Just as it is for example called EN/ISO/IEC in Europe.
Programmers still speaking about "ANSI C" generally haven't got a clue about what it means. ISO "owns" the C language, through the standard ISO 9899.
A minor update was released in 1995, sometimes referred to as "C95". This was not a major revision, but rather a technical amendment formally named ISO/IEC 9899:1990/Amd.1:1995. The main change was introduction of wide character support.
In 1999, the C standard went through a major revision (ISO 9899:1999). This version of the standard is called C99. From 1999-2011, this was "the C language".
In 2011, the C standard was changed again (ISO 9899:2011). This version is called C11. Various new features like _Generic, _Static_assert and thread support were added to the language. The update had a lot of focus on multi-core, multi-processing and expression sequencing. From 2011-2017, this was "the C language".
In 2017, C11 was revised and various defect reports were solved. This standard is informally called C17 or C18. It was finished in 2017 (and uses __STDC_VERSION__ = 201710L) but was released by ISO as 9899:2018, hence the ambiguity between C17/C18. It contains no new features, just corrections. It is the current version of the C language.
A draft called "C23"/"C2X" is work in progress by the committee, planned to be released in 2023. The current working draft can be found here, at this point called N2731, last changed 2021-10-18.
This contains a lot of minor defect report fixes like C17/C18 but also some major changes, most notable (so far):
the removal of exotic signedness representations in favour of mandatory 2's complement
final removal of "K&R-style" function definitions (flagged obsolescent since C99)
some new functions added including memccpy and strdup
some new function attributes from C++ deprecated, fallthrough, maybe_unused, and nodiscard
binary 0b notation for integer constants (currently not listed as one of the changes to N2731 but present on p.51 of the draft).
"C99 strict" likely refers to a compiler setting forcing a compiler to follow the standard by the letter. There is a term conforming implementation in the C standard. Essentially it means: "this compiler actually implements the C language correctly". Programs that implement the C language correctly are formally called strictly conforming programs. Such programs may also not contain any form of poorly-defined behavior.
"GNU C" can mean two things. Either the C compiler itself that comes as part of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Or it can mean the non-standard default setup that the GCC C compiler uses. If you compile with gcc program.c then you don't compile according to the C standard, but rather a non-standard GNU setup, which may be referred to as "GNU C". For example, the whole Linux kernel is made in non-standard GNU C, and not in standard C.
If you want to compile your programs according to the C standard, you should type gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors. Replace c99 with c17 if your GCC version supports it.
I MUST respond regarding ANSI C. Although ANSI has not done anything with it, compilers are still built to it. PIC XC16 compiler for example:
"The compiler is a fully validated compiler that conforms to the ANSI C
standard as defined by the ANSI specification (ANSI x3.159-1989) and
described in Kernighan and Ritchie’s The C Programming Language (second
edition). ..."
Not all programming is for "big" computers like PCs. Writing a compiler for your device costs, and validating costs time & $. ANSI C is alive & well &
living in your embedded / real-time devices.
ANSI C :
The first C language was standardized by the body called ANSI in 1989 that's why it is called c89.
C99 :
with the demand from the developers requirements, in 1999-2000 further or additional keywords and features have been included in C99 (ex: inline, boolean.. Added floating point arthematic library functions)
GNU C: GNU is a unix like operating system (www.gnu.org) & somewhere GNU's project needs C programming language based on ANSI C standard. GNU use GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) compiler to compile the code. It has C library function which defines system calls such as malloc, calloc, exit...etc
ANSI C is a standard which is being used by or refereed the other standards.
In Addition To Lundin Answer
Here is What Dennis Richie Has To Say When Asked
"Why didn't K&R wait for the final, approved ANSI standard before writing K&R 2nd edition?"
Why didn't K&R wait for the final, approved ANSI standard before writing
K&R 2nd edition? It seems like this book will only be the correct standard for
a few months before it will be supesceded by the final ANSI standard. I know
that there are likely to be few major changes at this late stage, but why not
wait a few months and make sure you get it 100% right, rather than needing to
almost immediately write a 3rd edition or be obsolete?
We thought it would be nice to mark the 10th anniversary
of the first edition.
More seriously, we started work last summer because we had the
time and inclination then, and it appeared that X3J11 was approaching
an end. In December and January, as we were finishing, we considered
whether the possibility of important changes warranted putting off
delivery, and (after discussing the matter with the publisher)
decided that it was not worth waiting. P-H wanted it, and both
Brian and I wanted it off our agendas.
Even if there are changes in the standard, it's hard to imagine
that they would be extensive enough to warrant a new edition.
(We were even prepared to cope somehow with noalias, if it had lasted.)
We're ready to make necessary changes in a future printing,
but there's reason to hope that they should be minor. X3J11's
members are very anxious to finish without surprising people, too;
many of them work for companies that are preparing ANSI compilers,
after all.
Dennis Ritchie
This question was not thoroughly searched on net for answer ,anyway you may look at this :
C is a general-purpose programming language initially developed by
Dennis Ritchie between 1969 and 1973 at AT&T Bell Labs.
C99 is a standard of the C language published by ISO and adopted by ANSI in around 1999.
GNU C is just an extension of c89,while some features of c99 are also added,but in entirety it is different from c99 standard so when compiling in gcc we have to enter -std=c99 which is already mentioned in the other answers.
ANSI C is a successive series of standards released by ANSI.
Does C (or any other low-level language, for that matter) even have source, or is the compiler the part that "does all the work", including parsing? If so, couldn't different compilers have different C dialects? Where does the stdlib factor into this? I would really like to know how this works.
The C language is not a piece of software but a defined standard, so one wouldn't say that it's open-source, but rather that it's an open standard.
There are a gazillion different compilers for C however, and many of those are indeed open-source. The most notable example is GCC's C compiler, which is all under the GNU General Public License (GPL), an open-source license.
There are more options. Watcom is open-source, for instance. There is no shortage of open-source C compilers, but without a doubt the most widespread one, at least in the non-Windows world, is GCC.
For Windows, your best bet is probably Watcom or GCC by using Cygwin or MinGW.
C is a standard which specifies how C compilers should generate programs.
C itself doesn't have any source code, just like a musical note doesn't have any plastic.
Some C compilers, such as GCC, are open source.
C is just a language, and a standardised one at that, too. It pretty much is the compiler that "does all the work". Different compilers did have different dialects; before the the C99 ANSI standard, you had things like Borland C and other competing compilers, that implemented the C language in their own fantastic ways.
stdlib is just an agreed-upon collection of standard libraries that are required to be present in any ANSI C implementation.
To add on to the other great answers:
Regarding different dialects -- there are some additional features added to C that are compiler specific. You can provide the command line flag -std=... to gcc to specify the C standard that you want to use, each has slight variations/additions to syntax, the most common is probably c99.
Each compiler tends to implement a few different extras, for example, typeof() is not in the C standard and so compilers do not have to implement this but nevertheless it is useful and most compilers provide it. Here is a list of gcc C extensions
The stdlib is a set of functions specified in the C standard. Much like compilers, stdlib can have different implementations. The GNU implementation is open source, as is gcc, but there are other compilers and could be other implementations of stdlib that are closed source.
The Compiler would determine all the mappings from C to Assembly etc... but as far as someone owning it.....noone really owns C however the ANSI/ISO determines the standards
GCC's C compiler is written in C. So we know there are at least one C compiler written in C.
GNU's stdlib (glibc) is also written in C (stdio.h, stdlib.h). But it also has some parts written in assembly language.
A really good question. There is a way to define a language standard (not the implementation!) in a form of a "source code", in a strict and unambigous language. Unfortunately, all of the old languages, including C, are poorly defined. But it is still possible to translate that definitions into a source code form.
Another approach is to define a language via its operational semantics, often in a form of a simple (and unefficient) reference implementation.
Helgi Hrafn Gunnarsson has written the main answer but I thought it would be worth noting that you can effectively end up with dialects too.
The compilers should do the same thing with regards to whichever standard they support (which these days should be pretty much all the same version) but there are grey areas. The way in which the compilers work for 'undefined' functionality for example. If the C specification says that the behaviour is undefined for a specific case then the compiler can do pretty much what it wants.
There are also examples of functions added to the libraries (and new libraries added) by the compiler makers to support specific platform traits, create a competitive advantage or simply to make life easier. The cynical might suggest that some of these are added to help lock people into a specific compiler too.
I would say that C as a language is not open source.
As pointed out by many, you can download GNU licensed compilers and libraries for free, but if you wanted to write your own C compiler, you would need to follow the ISO C standards, and ISO charge hard cash for the specification of the C language, which at the time of posting this is $178.
So really the answer depends on what elements you are interested in being free and open source.
I'm not sure what your definitions of "open source" are.
For the standardization process, it is possible for anyone to participate, but if you want to be able to vote then you will need to pay to join your national body (for instance, ANSI for the USA, BSI for the UK, AFNOR for France etc.). As a rule most standards body memberships are paid by corporations. That said, the process is fairly open. You can access discussion papers on the standards web site.
The standards themselves are not free either. The ISO pdf store currently sells the C standard for 198 swiss francs. Draft copies of the standard can be found easily for free.
There are plenty of open source implementations of both compilers and libraries.