Re: What is wrong with malloc?

On 1/8/25 4:41 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:

On 1/8/25 3:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> writes:
[...]

C89 and C90 are better for 8-bit systems then C99 and newer. Not that
you can't do 8-bit on C99 but it's just not designed as well for it
since C99 assumes you've moved on to at least 16-bit.

There were no changes in the sizes of the integer types from C89/C90
to
C99, aside from the addition of long long.  (And an implementation with
8-bit int would be non-conforming under any edition of the standard,
though it might be useful.)

>

Perhaps some C89/C90 implementations are better for 8-bit systems than
some C90 implementations?

>
Yes, this is what I was saying.

 I'm curious about the details.  What C89/C90 implementation are
you using, and what features make it more suitable for 8-bit
systems?  (Any useful extensions could be applied to a C99 or
later implementation.  It sounds like the implementer just hasn't
done that.)
 

Generally this only applies to use cases where specific instructions generated by the compiler are different between c90 and c99 where TOE's matter (timing of execution). For example, there are cases (sorry I don't have examples because it's been a long time since I've gone through this) where c99, in order to be more efficient, will output a different set of instructions, but in certain cases, those instructions, while more efficient, take longer to process on the CPU or microcontroller. Whereas C89 and C90 may be more inefficient but the instructions execute faster. It might only be that C99 adds an extra 1-3 clock cycles, and in most cases this isn't a problem or noticeable. But when you are dealing with devices that are responsible for keeping a human alive (such as a pace maker) the extra cycles can add up over time and will cause trouble down the road. So this was the purpose behind my point of reference earlier was just to say, that there are niche cases where the statement that was made, wouldn't be accurate.
For pace makers the GNU GCC implementation was used and for the smart prosthetic the CLANG implementation was used. GCC was using C90 and CLANG was using C89 (ANSI).
Although above I couldn't provide a specific example (again sorry about that) I do have the result report from back when I was testing out pace makers with C99 over C90 (2007) and the process found that with C99 the processor would be behind by around 500 cycles within 19h 41m 19s from program start. This had a +/- of 12 cycles differential with repeat testing. That would mean the heart would miss a beat ever 17 days.
--
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------