Re: Good hash for pointers

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

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>

On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 00:56:40 -0700
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

I don't know why you say that.  C was an ANSI standard before it
was an ISO standard.  Or is it that you think that the language
Malcolm is intent on using does not conform to C90/C89/ANSI C?

>
All I wanted to point by this comment is that ANSI recognizes ISO/IEC
9899:2018 as their current C Standard and probably will recognize the
next ISO C Standard pretty soon.  For that reason I think that names like
C89 or C90 are preferable (to ANSI C) when we want to refer to this
particular variant of the language.

>
I see.  So it isn't that you think "ANSI C" is wrong, just
that it might be misleading or that C89 or C90 is preferable.
Personally I would be surprised if someone used "ANSI C" to
mean anything other than C89/C90, but certainly other people
could have a different reaction.

>
[...] I don't necessarily complain when someone uses the phrase
"ANSI C" to mean C89/C90, but I try to avoid it myself in favor
of "C89" or "C90".

I'm reminded that gcc accepts the option -ansi as a synonym for
the option -std=c90.