Re: Segments

On 15/01/2025 21:59, Thomas Koenig wrote:

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> schrieb:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:00:34 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> schrieb:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:09:38 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
 

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> schrieb:

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> 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.