Talk:C11 (C standard revision)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C11 (C standard revision) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

C/C++ High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++ articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article falls within the scope of C.

Rename to C11

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to C11 (C standard revision). Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C1X → C11 – C1X is ISO from 2011, so x=1. "http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/" says "New revision of ISO/IEC 9899:2011 C standard (C11) published"; the C11 is used in comp.lang.c and comp.std.c http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/cd83c0251080604a# `a5b (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; however there is already a dab page at C11, so it should be moved to something like C11 (C standard revision). --memset (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Oneiros (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Rathgemz (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Implementations

Section on Implementations is needed, eg Microsoft Visual Studio C++ 2012 plus those mentioned in the introduction. John a s (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C11 (C standard revision). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203031224/http://www.owasp.org.cn/OWASP_Conference/2011/17_.pdf to http://www.owasp.org.cn/OWASP_Conference/2011/17_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated C standard

There appears to be an update to the C standard. While searching for it I came across:

https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=INCITS%2fISO%2fIEC+9899%3a2011+(R2017)

This is the ANSI store where the C11 revision R2017 document is up for sale.

Should this be referred to as C18?

Pcovello (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but NO, it's still C11, because of the "2011" in the title "INCITS/ISO/IEC 9899:2011 (R2017)". Though I don't have a copy, my guess it's an "errata" release that fixes typos and other minor mistakes, which is fairly typical in large documents. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not ANSI's "R2017" is the same as ISO's "2018", it's actually an interesting question how the new standard (ISO/IEC 9899:2018) should be referred to. The committee has been calling it "C17" informally (multiple mentions in WG14 papers), and it is referred to as "C17" by gcc and clang (both support -std=c17 and -std=gnu17), but gcc now also aliases that to -std=c18 and -std=gnu18 --Cubbi (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we need to look at ISO committee for answers. GCC is not the official source. Sometimes GCC does things to line up how ever it makes sense to them at the time of doing something. Their ARM naming methods are a mess compared to official ARM names. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the __STDC_VERSION__ is still 201710L even in the published ISO 9899:2018, so it makes some sense to keep referring to it as C17 and not C18. The most recent FDIS reads: "This fourth edition cancels and replaces the third edition, ISO/IEC 9899:2011, which has been technically revised. It also incorporates the Technical Corrigendum ISO/IEC 9899:2011/Cor 1:2012. There are no major changes in this edition, only technical corrections and clarifications." So this is definitely a new edition of the standard, unlike the previous corrigenda and the C95 amendment for which the edition number was not changed, and it should't be referred to as C11 anymore. -- Angbor (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created C18 (C standard revision) to cover it. We don't need a feature release for a new article, as long as it's notable so I just did it. As for the title, WP:COMMONNAME applies and I've left both informal names in per usage in sources, and created the redirect C17 (C standard revision) and entries in both C17 C18 dabs. Widefox; talk 11:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of some interest is the view stats for the different standards [1] where C18 already has half the daily views of each of the others, with C11 the most popular. Widefox; talk 13:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Widefox. Great work! (FWIW, I expect that ISO/IEC 9899:2018 is almost certainly going to be called "C18", because most C programmers won't care what it was called during development.) Cheers, CWC 04:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's my assumption with the name, but due to strings baked into implementations in 2017, C17 doesn't seem to want to disappear unlike the C1X precedent. Widefox; talk 09:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Talk:C18 (C standard revision) is the correct place for further discussion on this. Widefox; talk 09:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linux kernel

The Linux kernel will be moving to the C11 standard. Add comment to this effect in this Wiki article, as this is hugely significant software. 82.21.55.166 (talk)

Helpbox experiment

I added a Template:Helpbox as an EXPERIMENT, in the hopes that it might help readers quickly navigate to other C language revisions.

About 4.5 years ago, I created a similar navigation experiment for 6 loop construct articles, such as Do while loop. After being a successful experiment, it was later converted into a template for use in those 6 articles.

Originally, I got this idea from some other Wikipedia articles that have a navigator template in the upper-right corner, such as Old Testament and other religious articles.

I used the Helpbox template as an easy means to create an experimental concept, instead of creating a template, then learning that everyone hated the navigation concept and wasting a bunch of my time.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow, why not use {{Sidebar}}, which can used in main space, unlike {{Helpbox}}, which is meant for Wikipedia namespace and Help namespace? —⁠andrybak (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used Helpbox, because I came across it at some point in the past and started using it because it was simple to use. So now I borrowed from the helpbox template to create a first draft sidebar as you can see in this section. Does it look ok? Any mistakes? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another experiment, I created a more compact sidebar that takes up less vertical space. This version looks better on the C99 article when it is placed above that cover photo. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow The second version looks good. It's low profile and shouldn't get in the way of the article, plus having the version navigation near the top is handy. I'm thinking about copying this for the C++ revisions, but I'm thinking it would do better as a template, to reduce duplication or editing overhead. Edit: I've gone ahead and made it into a template (plus an equivalent for C++). — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]