Patchwork Rework c99status.html

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Joseph S. Myers
Date Oct. 27, 2013, 3:45 p.m.
Message ID <Pine.LNX.4.64.1310271533510.6968@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/286344/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Joseph S. Myers - Oct. 27, 2013, 3:45 p.m.
GCC's c99status.html seem persistently to confuse people into thinking the 
state of C99 support is worse than it is, by listing things as "Missing" 
or "Broken" when in fact what's missing or broken isn't needed to 
implement C99 but is some optional extra for ideal support, or is only 
broken or missing on obscure platforms, or only relates to obscure corner 
cases most users are unlikely to encounter; people also seem to get 
confused by what "Library Issue" means, despite the explanation above the 
table.  Readers don't generally seem to pay attention to the notes below 
the table that then explain exactly what is broken or missing for a 
particular entry.

I've committed this patch to rework the page so it starts with a summary 
of the overall C99 state, then describes each feature by listing the GCC 
version in which it was substantially supported (not necessarily obscure 
corner cases), or "N/A" if no compiler support required, with further 
notes then directly included in the table where reasonable.  Hopefully 
this will be less confusing to readers than the previous version.

I think it would be appropriate to redirect all the c99status.html files 
for particular GCC versions to this file, now it covers all versions.
Gerald Pfeifer - Oct. 28, 2013, 1:03 a.m.
Hi Joseph,

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I've committed this patch to rework the page so it starts with a summary 
> of the overall C99 state, then describes each feature by listing the GCC 
> version in which it was substantially supported (not necessarily obscure 
> corner cases), or "N/A" if no compiler support required, with further 
> notes then directly included in the table where reasonable.  Hopefully 
> this will be less confusing to readers than the previous version.

thanks for working on this!

> I think it would be appropriate to redirect all the c99status.html files 
> for particular GCC versions to this file, now it covers all versions.

To make sure I understand:  you are proposing we remove all
individual c99status.html pages and have the web server redirect
to the one you just updated for all of those?

I'll be happy to make that change once you confirmed.

Gerald
Joseph S. Myers - Oct. 28, 2013, 1:02 p.m.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> > I think it would be appropriate to redirect all the c99status.html files 
> > for particular GCC versions to this file, now it covers all versions.
> 
> To make sure I understand:  you are proposing we remove all
> individual c99status.html pages and have the web server redirect
> to the one you just updated for all of those?

Yes.  (I wonder if we should actually rename it to a more generic name, 
such as cstdstatus.html, with a view to adding a section on C11 support, 
but I'm less sure of that.  If I complete the atomics support during stage 
1, and also get _Thread_local done, then the C11 support can be described 
as substantially complete in 4.9 with the same caveats as for C99.)

Patch

Index: c99status.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/c99status.html,v
retrieving revision 1.59
retrieving revision 1.62
diff -u -r1.59 -r1.62
--- c99status.html	28 Oct 2012 11:05:08 -0000	1.59
+++ c99status.html	27 Oct 2013 15:41:51 -0000	1.62
@@ -7,306 +7,363 @@ 
 <body>
 <h1>Status of C99 features in GCC</h1>
 
+<p>C99 is substantially completely supported as of GCC 4.5
+(with <code>-std=c99 -pedantic-errors</code> used), modulo bugs,
+extended identifiers (supported except for corner cases
+when <code>-fextended-identifiers</code> is used), and floating-point
+issues (mainly but not entirely relating to optional C99 features from
+Annexes F and G).  The following table gives more details of the C99
+support in different GCC versions.</p>
+
 <p>This table is based on the list in the foreword to <a
 href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf">N1256</a>
 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E), consolidated with ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.1:2001
 (E), ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.2:2004 (E) and ISO/IEC 9899:1999/Cor.3:2007
 (E)).</p>
 
-<p>Where "Library Issue" is listed in conjunction with some other
-status, this means that some compiler support is needed for the
-library support, or desirable in conjunction with it.  Note that the
-headers required of conforming freestanding implementations (clause 4
-paragraph 6) do not count as library issues.</p>
-
-<p>This page describes the C99 support in mainline GCC, not in any
-particular release.  Information is also available on <a
-href="gcc-4.7/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.7</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.6/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.6</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.5/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.5</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.4/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.4</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.3/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.3</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.2/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.2</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.1/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.1</a>, <a
-href="gcc-4.0/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 4.0</a>, <a
-href="gcc-3.4/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 3.4</a>, <a
-href="gcc-3.3/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 3.3</a>, <a
-href="gcc-3.1/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 3.1 and 3.2</a> and on <a
-href="gcc-3.0/c99status.html">C99 support in GCC 3.0</a>, but not on
-the much more limited support in GCC 2.95.</p>
+<p>The "Version" column indicates the first GCC version in which
+support for the relevant feature was substantially present; some bugs
+or corner cases may have been fixed in later versions; this column is
+"N/A" if nothing is needed from the compiler for the feature to be
+substantially supported (for example, if the feature refers to
+addition of new library functions rather than language features), even
+if additional compiler features could be useful in conjunction with
+it.  It is assumed that GCC is used with <code>-std=c99
+-pedantic-errors</code> (for versions 3.0 and later), as well
+as <code>-fextended-identifiers</code> in the case of that feature.
+Where library cooperation is required, it is assumed that a recent
+version of the GNU C Library is in use, and support with other C
+libraries may be less good.  Where the version listed is before GCC
+3.0, it should not be assumed that all corner cases follow C99 before
+GCC 3.0, even if there is no specific note regarding corner cases.</p>
 
 <p>See below the table for further notes on some issues.</p>
 
 <table border="1">
 <tr><th>Feature</th>
-    <th>Library Issue</th>
-    <th>Done</th>
-    <th>Broken</th>
-    <th>Missing</th>
+    <th>Version</th>
+    <th>Notes</th>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>restricted character set support via digraphs and
-    <br /><code>&lt;iso646.h&gt;</code> (originally specified in AMD1)</em></td>
+    <code>&lt;iso646.h&gt;</code> (originally specified in AMD1)</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.7</td>
     <td></td>
-    <td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>wide character library support in
-    <code>&lt;wchar.h&gt;</code><br />and <code>&lt;wctype.h&gt;</code>
+    <code>&lt;wchar.h&gt;</code> and <code>&lt;wctype.h&gt;</code>
     (originally specified in AMD1)</em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required.  GCC doesn't
+    have <code>wprintf</code>, <code>wscanf</code> and
+    <code>wcsftime</code> format checking support.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>more precise aliasing rules via effective type</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Optimization, no compiler support required.  GCC has
+    optimized based on aliasing rules since GCC 2.95.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>restricted pointers</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.95</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>variable-length arrays</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td>
-    <td></td>
+<tr><td><em>variable length arrays</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>Various corner cases fixed in GCC 4.5.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>flexible array members</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em><code>static</code> and type qualifiers<br />in parameter array declarators</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em><code>static</code> and type qualifiers in parameter array declarators</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.1</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>complex (and imaginary) support in <code>&lt;complex.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td>New functions are a library issue not requiring much compiler
+    support (some built-in functions present).  Complex numbers are
+    supported with <code>__complex__</code> since GCC 2.5, and with
+    C99 <code>_Complex</code> since GCC 3.0.  Complex multiplication
+    and division support C99 special cases since GCC 4.0.  Various
+    corner cases were fixed in GCC 4.5.  GCC does not support the
+    Annex G imaginary types, but this support is optional, and complex
+    multiplication and division have excess overflows at runtime
+    (although not beyond those permitted by C99).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>type-generic math macros in <code>&lt;tgmath.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature; GCC built-in functions may be used in
+    implementing it.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>the <code>long long int</code> type and library functions</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>&le; GCC 1.27</td>
+    <td>New functions are a library issue not requiring much compiler
+    support (some built-in functions present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>increased minimum translation limits</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>GNU policy has always avoided arbitrary limits.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>additional floating-point characteristics<br />in <code>&lt;float.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>additional floating-point characteristics in <code>&lt;float.h&gt;</code></em></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>remove implicit <code>int</code></em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>reliable integer division</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>universal character names (<code>\u</code> and <code>\U</code>)</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.1</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>extended identifiers</em></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+    <td>GCC 4.1</td>
+    <td>Requires <code>-fextended-identifiers</code> and some corner
+    cases may be broken.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>hexadecimal floating-point constants and
-    <code>%a</code><br /> and <code>%A</code>
+    <code>%a</code> and <code>%A</code>
     <code>printf</code>/<code>scanf</code> conversion specifiers</em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.8</td>
+    <td>Conversion specifiers are a library issue (format checking
+    support present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>compound literals</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td>
-    <td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.1</td>
+    <td>The syntax was supported by GCC by version 1.21, but with
+    significant differences from C99 requirements until GCC 3.1.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>designated initializers</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td>
-    <td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td>The syntax was supported since GCC 2.5, but with significant
+    differences from C99 requirements until GCC 3.0.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em><code>//</code> comments</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
-</tr>
-
-<tr><td><em>library functions in <code>&lt;inttypes.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.7</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>extended integer types in <code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+<tr><td><em>extended integer types and library functions
+    in <code>&lt;inttypes.h&gt;</code>
+    and <code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code></em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>All of this can be provided by the library rather than the
+    compiler (some built-in function support also
+    present).  <code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code> is provided by GCC (as of
+    version 4.5), or fixed where the system headers provide a
+    nonconforming version, on some but not yet all systems.  On
+    systems where types in this header have been defined
+    as <code>char</code>, GCC retains this definition although it is
+    not permitted by C99.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>remove implicit function declaration</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>preprocessor arithmetic<br />done in <code>intmax_t</code>/<code>uintmax_t</code></em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>preprocessor arithmetic done in <code>intmax_t</code>/<code>uintmax_t</code></em></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.3</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>mixed declarations and code</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>new block scopes for selection<br />and iteration statements</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>new block scopes for selection and iteration statements</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>integer constant type rules</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.3</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>integer promotion rules</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 4.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>macros with a variable number of arguments</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.95</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>the <code>vscanf</code> family of functions
-    in<br /><code>&lt;stdio.h&gt;</code> and <code>&lt;wchar.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    in <code>&lt;stdio.h&gt;</code> and <code>&lt;wchar.h&gt;</code></em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required (format checking
+    support present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>additional math library functions in <code>&lt;math.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required (various
+    built-in functions present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>treatment of error conditions by math library functions (<code>math_errhandling</code>)</em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>floating-point environment access<br />in <code>&lt;fenv.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>floating-point environment access in <code>&lt;fenv.h&gt;</code></em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>IEC 60559 (also known as<br />IEC 559 or IEEE arithmetic) support</em></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td>Broken</td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>IEC 60559 (also known as IEC 559 or IEEE arithmetic) support</em></td>
+    <td></td>
+    <td>Optional feature, not properly supported in GCC.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>trailing comma allowed in <code>enum</code> declaration</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em><code>%lf</code> conversion specifier<br />allowed in <code>printf</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em><code>%lf</code> conversion specifier allowed in <code>printf</code></em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required (format checking
+    support present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>inline functions</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td>
-    <td></td>
+    <td>GCC 4.3</td>
+    <td>Inline function support present since at least GCC 1.21, but
+    with major differences from C99 semantics until 4.3.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>the <code>snprintf</code> family of functions in <code>&lt;stdio.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required (format checking
+    support present).</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>boolean type in <code>&lt;stdbool.h&gt;</code></em></td>
-    <td></td>
-    <td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td>GCC 2.95 had <code>&lt;stdbool.h&gt;</code>, but based on an
+    early draft with major differences from C99 semantics.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>idempotent type qualifiers</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td>Always has been allowed, with a warning as required by C90
+    depending on GCC version.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>empty macro arguments</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>Undefined behavior in C90, but GCC not known ever to have
+    handled them contrary to C99.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>new struct type compatibility<br />rules (tag compatibility)</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>new structure type compatibility rules (tag compatibility)</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>This relates to compatibility between translation units.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>additional predefined macro names</em></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td>Support for the compiler to implicitly preinclude a
+    file <code>stdc-predef.h</code> provided by the C library, and so
+    predefine macros relating to library properties for the whole
+    translation unit, is new in GCC 4.8.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em><code>_Pragma</code> preprocessing operator</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>standard pragmas</em></td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Missing</td>
+    <td></td>
+    <td>Not implemented.  Associated command-line options to control
+    the state of the pragmas for the whole translation unit are
+    available.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em><code>__func__</code> predefined identifier</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 2.95</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em><code>va_copy</code> macro</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>additional <code>strftime</code> conversion specifiers</em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td><td>Done</td><td></td><td></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required (format checking
+    support present).</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>deprecate <code>ungetc</code> at the<br />beginning of a binary file</em></td>
-    <td>Library Issue</td>
-    <td></td><td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>LIA compatibility annex</em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>This annex describes how C relates to another standard, and
+    does not impose any requirements on C implementations.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>remove deprecation of<br />aliased array parameters</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>deprecate <code>ungetc</code> at the beginning of a binary file</em></td>
+    <td>N/A</td>
+    <td>Library feature, no compiler support required.</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr><td><em>remove deprecation of aliased array parameters</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>GCC has never done anything regarding this deprecation.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>conversion of array to pointer not limited to lvalues</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.1</td>
+    <td>Some support since GCC 2.0, but with major differences from
+    C99 requirements before GCC 3.1.</td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><td><em>relaxed constraints on aggregate<br />and union initialization</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+<tr><td><em>relaxed constraints on aggregate and union initialization</em></td>
+    <td>&le; GCC 1.21</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em>relaxed restrictions on portable header names</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    <td>GCC 0.9</td>
+    <td>GCC has never had such restrictions itself.</td>
 </tr>
 
 <tr><td><em><code>return</code> without expression not permitted
-    in<br />function that returns a value (and vice versa)</em></td>
-    <td></td><td>Done</td>
-    <td></td><td></td>
+    in function that returns a value (and vice versa)</em></td>
+    <td>GCC 3.0</td>
+    <td></td>
 </tr>
 
-<tr><th>Feature</th>
-    <th>Library Issue</th>
-    <th>Done</th>
-    <th>Broken</th>
-    <th>Missing</th>
-</tr>
 </table>
 
 <h2>Further notes</h2>
@@ -344,25 +401,6 @@ 
 support that only conforms as long as the above options are not used
 anywhere in the program.</li>
 
-<li>GCC doesn't have <code>wprintf</code>, <code>wscanf</code> and
-<code>wcsftime</code> format checking support.</li>
-
-<li>GCC does not support the Annex G imaginary types and complex
-multiplication and division have excess overflows at runtime (although
-not beyond those permitted by C99).</li>
-
-<li><code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code> is provided by GCC, or fixed where
-the system headers provide a nonconforming version, on some but not
-yet all systems.  On systems where types in this header have been
-defined as <code>char</code>, GCC retains this definition although it
-is not permitted by C99.</li>
-
-<li>Some of the C99 predefined macros represent properties of the
-compiler and library together and so defining them for the whole
-translation unit requires cooperation with the library;
-a <a href="http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2009-04/msg00005.html">GNU
-C Library patch</a> for this is pending review.</li>
-
 <li><code>const</code>-qualified compound literals could share storage
 with each other and with string literals, but currently don't.</li>
 
@@ -371,13 +409,6 @@ 
 it in future in conjunction with <a href="projects/prefetch.html">work
 on prefetching</a>.</li>
 
-<li>The list above differs from that in N1256 as follows:
-"LIA compatibility annex" is removed, since it refers to C99's
-conformance to another standard rather than something for C
-implementations to do.  The <code>&lt;stdint.h&gt;</code> and
-<code>&lt;inttypes.h&gt;</code> entries have been separated, but are a
-single entry in C99.</li>
-
 </ul>
 
 </body>