Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"

On 4/4/2025 2:43 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:01:18 -0700
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wibbled:

On 4/2/2025 1:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 4/2/2025 8:16 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:12:18 -0000 (UTC)
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wibbled:

Muttley@dastardlyhq.org wrote:

On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:57:29 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:

On 02/04/2025 06:59, Alexis wrote:

>
Thought people here might be interested in this image on Jens
Gustedt's
blog, which translates section 6.2.5, "Types", of the C23 standard
into a graph of inclusions:
>
     https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2025/03/29/a-diagram-of-c23-
basic-types/
>

>
So much for C being a 'simple' language.

>
C should be left alone. It does what it needs to do for a systems
language.
Almost no use uses it for applications any more and sophisticated
processing
using complex types for example are far better done in C++.

>
C99 has VMT (variable modified types).  Thanks to VMT and complex types
C99 can naturaly do numeric computing that previously was done using
Fortran 77.  Offical C++ has no VMT.  C++ mechanizms look nicer,

>
Officially no, but I've never come across a C++ compiler that didn't
support
them given they're all C compilers too.

>
All C++ compilers are also C compilers?

>
To answer my own sarcastic question: No way. :^)

 So name one that isn't. Fairly simple way to prove your point.
 

Try to compile this in a C++ compiler:
_____________
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
   void *p = malloc(sizeof(int));
   int *ip = p;
   free(p);
   printf("done\n");
   return 0;
}
_____________
What am I missing?