Article: MAQSIP-RT: An HPC Benchmark
By: Konrad Schwarz (no.spam.delete@this.no.spam), July 1, 2010 7:02 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
>There are few bits in 'C' syntax that have absolutely no justification except of
>backward compatibility with [hopefully] very small subset of existing code base.
>They are:
>1. Legality of functions without prototypes.
Of course, GCC will warn you about invoking functions undeclared with a new-style prototype.
>2. Legality of strange syntax constructs like 5[x]
5[x] is easily explained by the definition of A[O], which
is *(A + O). Commutativity of addition explains this form.
Pointer arithmetic is a great feature. For example,
what is the address of the end of a completely typed array?
1 [&A].
>3. Inconsistency w.r.t. comma-delimited lists. In some contexts (struct/array initialization)
>comma as a terminator is allowed (at least by all compilers I use) while in some
>other contexts (function parameters lists, both in call and in prototype) it is
>not. Not a big deal for human coders, but unnecessary annoyance for code generators.
What language does not suffer from this?
Note that C90 allows a comma after the last enum constant
in an enum definition.
>Another syntax ugliness which, if fixed, would break a bit more code, but not that
>much is a requirement to define variables at the beginning of the block. gcc dialect already has it fixed.
C90 solves this problem.
>And finally the biggest unnecessary problem, which, unfortunately, if fixed, will
>break a lot of legacy code, in particular in mixed C/ASM environments - type-safe
>link. In my book, omission of type safe link alone is big enough reason to never
>use 'C' if C++ is supported by your environment.
Actually, I see two other problems: | & have precedence lower than comparison; this is because initially C didn't support || and &&. Typedefs are definitions, and must appear only once, leading to header protection macros.
On the other hand, for sufficiently small expressions, |
and & should be faster than || and && on modern processors
(where applicable).
>backward compatibility with [hopefully] very small subset of existing code base.
>They are:
>1. Legality of functions without prototypes.
Of course, GCC will warn you about invoking functions undeclared with a new-style prototype.
>2. Legality of strange syntax constructs like 5[x]
5[x] is easily explained by the definition of A[O], which
is *(A + O). Commutativity of addition explains this form.
Pointer arithmetic is a great feature. For example,
what is the address of the end of a completely typed array?
1 [&A].
>3. Inconsistency w.r.t. comma-delimited lists. In some contexts (struct/array initialization)
>comma as a terminator is allowed (at least by all compilers I use) while in some
>other contexts (function parameters lists, both in call and in prototype) it is
>not. Not a big deal for human coders, but unnecessary annoyance for code generators.
What language does not suffer from this?
Note that C90 allows a comma after the last enum constant
in an enum definition.
>Another syntax ugliness which, if fixed, would break a bit more code, but not that
>much is a requirement to define variables at the beginning of the block. gcc dialect already has it fixed.
C90 solves this problem.
>And finally the biggest unnecessary problem, which, unfortunately, if fixed, will
>break a lot of legacy code, in particular in mixed C/ASM environments - type-safe
>link. In my book, omission of type safe link alone is big enough reason to never
>use 'C' if C++ is supported by your environment.
Actually, I see two other problems: | & have precedence lower than comparison; this is because initially C didn't support || and &&. Typedefs are definitions, and must appear only once, leading to header protection macros.
On the other hand, for sufficiently small expressions, |
and & should be faster than || and && on modern processors
(where applicable).
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New article online: MAQSIP RT | David Kanter | 2010/06/21 10:57 AM |
Why no GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/22 08:25 PM |
Why no GCC? | David Kanter | 2010/06/22 11:45 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Rohit | 2010/06/23 04:04 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | anon | 2010/06/23 06:49 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/23 09:42 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 01:49 PM |
even for 64-bit arch? | anon | 2010/06/23 01:59 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/23 10:03 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:33 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 04:32 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:18 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:50 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/24 11:17 AM |
Why GCC is big and complicated (my guess) | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/28 03:00 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Bernd Schmidt | 2010/06/24 04:46 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | ajensen | 2010/06/24 08:43 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:12 PM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Rob Thorpe | 2010/06/24 06:47 AM |
GCC is very ugly bad everywhere in 64 bits | Anon | 2010/06/24 04:23 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/23 09:45 PM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 12:48 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 01:29 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 02:13 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 02:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:08 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 02:54 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | ? | 2010/06/24 03:15 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/06/24 06:22 AM |
Where is the GCC optimization effort directed? | Rohit | 2010/06/24 02:04 AM |
Placebo effect | ? | 2010/06/24 05:37 AM |
Placebo effect | Rohit | 2010/06/24 07:45 AM |
Placebo effect | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/26 01:50 PM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/26 04:28 PM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:44 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:12 AM |
Compile time | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/27 09:21 AM |
Compile time | EduardoS | 2010/06/27 10:37 AM |
Compile time | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/27 03:07 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | ? | 2010/06/27 11:03 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Christiansen | 2010/06/28 05:08 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 06:48 AM |
kernel programming language | John Simon | 2010/06/29 05:46 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 08:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Linus Torvalds | 2010/06/28 10:17 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 01:16 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/28 05:23 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Mark Roulo | 2010/06/29 07:31 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Richard Cownie | 2010/06/29 10:48 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:28 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/29 06:12 PM |
C is a crappy, but only when you push it out of it's niche | Rohit | 2010/06/30 01:11 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/06/30 01:17 AM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/06/30 06:59 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/01 03:30 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 06:00 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 07:02 AM |
C is a crappy | Michael S | 2010/07/01 07:50 AM |
C isn't so crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:11 AM |
C isn't so crappy | Mikael Tillenius | 2010/07/01 10:39 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/01 10:22 AM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 07:44 AM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 11:33 AM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/02 12:17 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 01:56 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 02:13 PM |
C is a crappy | rwessel | 2010/07/02 02:32 PM |
C is a crappy | Max | 2010/07/02 03:19 PM |
C is a crappy | Gabriele Svelto | 2010/07/05 04:25 AM |
C is a crappy | gallier2 | 2010/07/01 11:14 PM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/06 02:07 PM |
Portability | Max | 2010/07/06 02:37 PM |
C is a crappy | hobold | 2010/07/07 01:31 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:18 PM |
failure to standardize types | Carlie Coats | 2010/07/07 03:11 AM |
C is a crappy | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 07:34 AM |
C is a crappy | Ian Ollmann | 2010/07/07 04:29 PM |
C is a crappy NOT | Konrad Schwarz | 2010/07/07 11:29 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/01 09:40 PM |
C type safety | ? | 2010/07/02 12:10 AM |
C type safety | anon | 2010/07/02 10:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/03 03:51 PM |
C is a crappy | anon | 2010/07/03 06:02 PM |
C is a crappy | dev | 2010/07/05 06:27 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/05 08:05 AM |
C is a crappy | anonymous | 2010/07/07 07:32 AM |
C is a crappy | ? | 2010/07/07 09:48 PM |
C is a crappy | Anon | 2010/07/07 11:53 PM |
C is a crappy and a crappie is a fish | anonymous | 2010/07/03 06:24 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:18 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | rwessel | 2010/06/29 11:20 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | someone | 2010/06/30 10:03 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Jouni Osmala | 2010/07/02 04:29 AM |
Compile time & efficiency | Max | 2010/06/28 04:05 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | EduardoS | 2010/06/28 04:11 PM |
Compile time & efficiency | Michael S | 2010/06/29 02:33 AM |
Compile time | Foo_ | 2010/06/28 08:03 AM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Silent | 2010/06/23 05:19 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Foo_ | 2010/06/23 06:06 PM |
sun 's cc better than GCC? | Andi Kleen | 2010/06/24 01:49 AM |
sun 's versus gcc | Vincent Diepeveen | 2010/06/23 02:07 PM |
Why no GCC? | Carlie Coats | 2010/06/23 04:11 AM |