User:Nikhitasreedhar/sandbox

In computing, C (, as in C|the letter C) is a general-purpose programming language initially developed by Dennis Ritchie between 1969 and 1973 at AT&T Bell Labs. Like most imperative languages in the ALGOL tradition, C has facilities for structured programming and allows lexical variable scope and recursion, while a static type system prevents many unintended operations. Its design provides constructs that map efficiently to typical machine instructions, and therefore it has found lasting use in applications that had formerly been coded in assembly language, most notably system software like the Unix computer operating system.

C is one of the most widely used programming languages of all time, and C compilers are available for the majority of available computer architectures and operating systems.

Many later languages have borrowed directly or indirectly from C, including D, Go, Rust, Java, JavaScript, Limbo, LPC, C#, Objective-C, Perl, PHP, Python, Verilog (hardware description language), and Unix's C shell. These languages have drawn many of their control structures and other basic features from C. Most of them (with Python being the most dramatic exception) are also very syntactically similar to C in general, and they tend to combine the recognizable expression and statement syntax of C with underlying type systems, data models, and semantics that can be radically different. C++ and Objective-C started as compilers that generated C code; C++ is currently nearly a superset of C, while Objective-C is a strict superset of C.

Before there was an official standard for C, many users and implementors relied on an informal specification contained in a book by Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan; that version is generally referred to as "K&R" C. In 1989 the American National Standards Institute published a standard for C (generally called "ANSI C" or "C89"). The next year, the same specification was approved by the International Organization for Standardization as an international standard (generally called "C90"). ISO later released an extension to the internationalization support of the standard in 1995, and a revised standard (known as "C99") in 1999. The current version of the standard (now known as "C11") was approved in December 2011.

Design
C is an imperative (procedural) language. It was designed to be compiled using a relatively straightforward compiler, to provide low-level access to memory, to provide language constructs that map efficiently to machine instructions, and to require minimal run-time support. C was therefore useful for many applications that had formerly been coded in assembly language, such as in system programming.

Despite its low-level capabilities, the language was designed to encourage cross-platform programming. A standards-compliant and portably written C program can be compiled for a very wide variety of computer platforms and operating systems with few changes to its source code. The language has become available on a very wide range of platforms, from embedded microcontrollers to supercomputers.

Characteristics
Like most imperative languages in the ALGOL tradition, C has facilities for structured programming and allows lexical variable scope and recursion, while a static type system prevents many unintended operations. In C, all executable code is contained within subroutines, which are called "functions" (although not in the strict sense of functional programming). Function parameters are always passed by value. Pass-by-reference is simulated in C by explicitly passing pointer values. C program source text is free-format, using the semicolon as a statement terminator and curly braces for grouping blocks of statements.

The C language also exhibits the following characteristics:
 * There is a small, fixed number of keywords, including a full set of flow of control primitives:,  ,  ,  , and  . There is one namespace, and user-defined names are not distinguished from keywords by any kind of sigil.
 * There are a large number of arithmetical and logical operators, such as,  ,  ,  ,  , etc.
 * More than one assignment may be performed in a single statement.
 * Function return values can be ignored when not needed.
 * Typing is static, but weakly enforced: all data has a type, but implicit conversions can be performed; for instance, characters can be used as integers.
 * Declaration syntax mimics usage context. C has no "define" keyword; instead, a statement beginning with the name of a type is taken as a declaration. There is no "function" keyword; instead, a function is indicated by the parentheses of an argument list.
 * User-defined and compound types are possible.
 * Heterogeneous aggregate data types allow related data elements to be accessed and assigned as a unit.
 * Array indexing is a secondary notion, defined in terms of pointer arithmetic. Unlike structs, arrays are not first-class objects; they cannot be assigned or compared using single built-in operators. There is no "array" keyword, in use or definition; instead, square brackets indicate arrays syntactically, e.g..
 * Enumerated types are possible with the  keyword. They are not tagged, and are freely interconvertible with integers.
 * Strings are not a separate data type, but are conventionally implemented as null-terminated arrays of characters.
 * Low-level access to computer memory is possible by converting machine addresses to typed pointers.
 * Procedures (subroutines not returning values) are a special case of function, with an untyped return type.
 * Functions may not be defined within the lexical scope of other functions.
 * Function and data pointers permit ad hoc run-time polymorphism.
 * A preprocessor performs macro definition, source code file inclusion, and conditional compilation.
 * There is a basic form of modularity: files can be compiled separately and linked together, with control over which functions and data objects are visible to other files via  and   attributes.
 * Complex functionality such as I/O, string manipulation, and mathematical functions are consistently delegated to library routines.

C does not include some features found in newer, more modern high-level languages, including object orientation and garbage collection.

Early developments


The origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix operating system, originally implemented in assembly language on a PDP-7 by Ritchie and Thompson, incorporating several ideas from colleagues. Eventually they decided to port the operating system to a PDP-11. The original PDP-11 version of Unix was developed in assembly language. The developers were considering to rewrite the system using the B language. However B's inability to take advantage of some of the PDP-11's features, notably byte addressability, led to the development of C.

The initial development of C occurred at AT&T Bell Labs between 1969 and 1973; according to Ritchie, the most creative period occurred in 1972. At that year a great part of Unix was rewritten in C. By 1973, with the addition of  types, the C language had become powerful enough that most of the Unix kernel was now in C. The new language was named "C" because its features were derived from "B", which according to Ken Thompson was a stripped-down version of the BCPL programming language.

Unix was one of the first operating system kernels implemented in a language other than assembly. (Earlier instances include the Multics system (written in PL/I), and MCP (Master Control Program) for the Burroughs B5000 written in ALGOL in 1961.) Circa 1977, further changes to the language were made by Ritchie and Stephen C. Johnson to facilitate portability of the Unix operating system. Johnson's Portable C Compiler served as the basis for several implementations of C on new platforms.

K&R C
In 1978, Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie published the first edition of The C Programming Language. This book, known to C programmers as "K&R", served for many years as an informal specification of the language. The version of C that it describes is commonly referred to as K&R C. The second edition of the book covers the later ANSI C standard.

K&R introduced several language features:


 * standard I/O library
 * data type
 * data type
 * compound assignment operators of the form op (such as  ) were changed to the form op  to remove the semantic ambiguity created by such constructs as , which had been interpreted as   (decrement i by 10) instead of the possibly intended   (let i be -10)

Even after the publication of the 1989 C standard, for many years K&R C was still considered the "lowest common denominator" to which C programmers restricted themselves when maximum portability was desired, since many older compilers were still in use, and because carefully written K&R C code can be legal Standard C as well.

In early versions of C, only functions that returned a non- value needed to be declared if used before the function definition; a function used without any previous declaration was assumed to return type , if its value was used.

For example:

The  type specifiers which are commented out could be omitted in K&R C, but are required in later standards.

Since K&R function declarations did not include any information about function arguments, function parameter type checks were not performed, although some compilers would issue a warning message if a local function was called with the wrong number of arguments, or if multiple calls to an external function used different numbers or types of arguments. Separate tools such as Unix's lint utility were developed that (among other things) could check for consistency of function use across multiple source files.

In the years following the publication of K&R C, several unofficial features were added to the language, supported by compilers from AT&T and some other vendors. These included:


 * functions (i.e. functions with no return value)
 * functions returning  or   types (rather than pointers)
 * assignment for  data types
 * enumerated types

The large number of extensions and lack of agreement on a standard library, together with the language popularity and the fact that not even the Unix compilers precisely implemented the K&R specification, led to the necessity of standardization.

ANSI C and ISO C
During the late 1970s and 1980s, versions of C were implemented for a wide variety of mainframe computers, minicomputers, and microcomputers, including the IBM PC, as its popularity began to increase significantly.

In 1983, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) formed a committee, X3J11, to establish a standard specification of C. X3J11 based the C standard on the Unix implementation; however, the non-portable portion of the Unix C library was handed off to the IEEE working group 1003 to become the basis for the 1988 POSIX standard. In 1989, the C standard was ratified as ANSI X3.159-1989 "Programming Language C". This version of the language is often referred to as ANSI C, Standard C, or sometimes C89.

In 1990, the ANSI C standard (with formatting changes) was adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) as ISO/IEC 9899:1990, which is sometimes called C90. Therefore, the terms "C89" and "C90" refer to the same programming language.

ANSI, like other national standards bodies, no longer develops the C standard independently, but defers to the international C standard, maintained by the working group ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG14. National adoption of an update to the international standard typically occurs within a year of ISO publication.

One of the aims of the C standardization process was to produce a superset of K&R C, incorporating many of the unofficial features subsequently introduced. The standards committee also included several additional features such as function prototypes (borrowed from C++),  pointers, support for international character sets and locales, and preprocessor enhancements. Although the syntax for parameter declarations was augmented to include the style used in C++, the K&R interface continued to be permitted, for compatibility with existing source code.

C89 is supported by current C compilers, and most C code being written today is based on it. Any program written only in Standard C and without any hardware-dependent assumptions will run correctly on any platform with a conforming C implementation, within its resource limits. Without such precautions, programs may compile only on a certain platform or with a particular compiler, due, for example, to the use of non-standard libraries, such as GUI libraries, or to a reliance on compiler- or platform-specific attributes such as the exact size of data types and byte endianness.

In cases where code must be compilable by either standard-conforming or K&R C-based compilers, the  macro can be used to split the code into Standard and K&R sections to prevent the use on a K&R C-based compiler of features available only in Standard C.

After the ANSI/ISO standardization process, the C language specification remained relatively static for several years. In 1995 Normative Amendment 1 to the 1990 C standard (ISO/IEC 9899/AMD1:1995, known informally as C95) was published, to correct some details and to add more extensive support for international character sets.

C99
The C standard was further revised in the late 1990s, leading to the publication of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 in 1999, which is commonly referred to as "C99". It has since been amended three times by Technical Corrigenda.

C99 introduced several new features, including inline functions, several new data types (including  and a   type to represent complex numbers), variable-length arrays, improved support for IEEE 754 floating point, support for variadic macros (macros of variable arity), and support for one-line comments beginning with , as in BCPL or C++. Many of these had already been implemented as extensions in several C compilers.

C99 is for the most part backward compatible with C90, but is stricter in some ways; in particular, a declaration that lacks a type specifier no longer has  implicitly assumed. A standard macro  is defined with value   to indicate that C99 support is available. GCC, Solaris Studio, and other C compilers now support many or all of the new features of C99. The C compiler in Microsoft Visual C++, however, implements the C89 standard and those parts of C99 that are required for compatibility with C++11.

C11
In 2007, work began on another revision of the C standard, informally called "C1X" until its official publication on 2011-12-08. The C standards committee adopted guidelines to limit the adoption of new features that had not been tested by existing implementations.

The C11 standard adds numerous new features to C and the library, including type generic macros, anonymous structures, improved Unicode support, atomic operations, multi-threading, and bounds-checked functions. It also makes some portions of the existing C99 library optional, and improves compatibility with C++.

Embedded C
Historically, embedded C programming requires nonstandard extensions to the C language in order to support exotic features such as fixed-point arithmetic, multiple distinct memory banks, and basic I/O operations.

In 2008, the C Standards Committee published a technical report extending the C language to address these issues by providing a common standard for all implementations to adhere to. It includes a number of features not available in normal C, such as fixed-point arithmetic, named address spaces, and basic I/O hardware addressing.

Syntax
C has a formal grammar specified by the C standard. Unlike languages such as FORTRAN 77, C source code is free-form which allows arbitrary use of whitespace to format code, rather than column-based or text-line-based restrictions. Comments may appear either between the delimiters  and , or (since C99)  following   until the end of the line. Comments delimited by  and   do not nest, and these sequences of characters are not interpreted as comment delimiters if they appear inside string or character literals.

C source files contain declarations and function definitions. Function definitions, in turn, contain declarations and statements. Declarations either define new types using keywords such as,  , and  , or assign types to and perhaps reserve storage for new variables, usually by writing the type followed by the variable name. Keywords such as  and   specify built-in types. Sections of code are enclosed in braces ( and , sometimes called "curly brackets") to limit the scope of declarations and to act as a single statement for control structures.

As an imperative language, C uses statements to specify actions. The most common statement is an expression statement, consisting of an expression to be evaluated, followed by a semicolon; as a side effect of the evaluation, functions may be called and variables may be assigned new values. To modify the normal sequential execution of statements, C provides several control-flow statements identified by reserved keywords. Structured programming is supported by (- ) conditional execution and by  -,  , and   iterative execution (looping). The  statement has separate initialization, testing, and reinitialization expressions, any or all of which can be omitted. and  can be used to leave the innermost enclosing loop statement or skip to its reinitialization. There is also a non-structured  statement which branches directly to the designated label within the function. selects a  to be executed based on the value of an integer expression.

Expressions can use a variety of built-in operators and may contain function calls. The order in which arguments to functions and operands to most operators are evaluated is unspecified. The evaluations may even be interleaved. However, all side effects (including storage to variables) will occur before the next "sequence point"; sequence points include the end of each expression statement, and the entry to and return from each function call. Sequence points also occur during evaluation of expressions containing certain operators (, ,   and the comma operator). This permits a high degree of object code optimization by the compiler, but requires C programmers to take more care to obtain reliable results than is needed for other programming languages.

Kernighan and Ritchie say in the Introduction of The C Programming Language: "C, like any other language, has its blemishes. Some of the operators have the wrong precedence; some parts of the syntax could be better." The C standard did not attempt to correct many of these blemishes, because of the impact of such changes on already existing software.

Character set
The basic C source character set includes the following characters:


 * Lowercase and uppercase letters: –   –
 * Decimal digits: –
 * Graphic characters:
 * Whitespace characters: space, horizontal tab, vertical tab, form feed, newline

Newline indicates the end of a text line; it need not correspond to an actual single character, although for convenience C treats it as one.

Additional multibyte encoded characters may be used, but are not portable. The latest C standard (C11) allows multinational Unicode characters to be embedded portably within C source text by using a  encoding (where   denotes a Unicode character code), although this feature is not yet widely implemented.

The basic C execution character set contains the same characters, along with representations for alert, backspace, and carriage return. Run-time support for extended character sets has increased with each revision of the C standard.

Keywords
C89 has 32 keywords (reserved words with special meaning):




 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 



C99 adds five more keywords:







C11 adds seven more keywords:









Most of the recently added keywords begin with an underscore followed by a capital letter, because identifiers of that form were previously reserved by the C standard for use only by implementations. Since existing program source code should not have been using these identifiers, it would not be affected when C implementations started supporting these extensions to the programming language. Some standard headers do define more convenient synonyms for underscored identifiers. The language previously included a reserved keyword called, but this was never implemented, and has now been removed as a reserved word.

Operators
C supports a rich set of operators, which are symbols used within an expression to specify the manipulations to be performed while evaluating that expression. C has operators for:


 * arithmetic:,  ,  ,  ,
 * assignment:
 * augmented assignment:,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,
 * bitwise logic:,  ,  ,
 * bitwise shifts: ,
 * boolean logic:,  ,
 * conditional evaluation:
 * equality testing: ,
 * calling functions:
 * increment and decrement: ,
 * member selection: ,
 * object size:
 * order relations:,  ,  ,
 * reference and dereference:,  ,
 * sequencing:
 * subexpression grouping:
 * type conversion:

C uses the  operator, reserved in mathematics to express equality, to indicate assignment, following the precedent of Fortran and PL/I, but unlike ALGOL and its derivatives. The similarity between C's operator for assignment and that for equality has been criticised as it makes it easy to accidentally substitute one for the other. In many cases, each may be used in the context of the other without a compilation error (although some compilers produce warnings). For example, the conditional expression in  is true if   is not zero after the assignment. Additionally, C's operator precedence is non-intuitive, such as  binding more tightly than   and   in expressions like , which would need to be written   to be properly evaluated.

"Hello, world" example
The "hello, world" example, which appeared in the first edition of K&R, has become the model for an introductory program in most programming textbooks, regardless of programming language. The program prints "hello, world" to the standard output, which is usually a terminal or screen display.

The original version was:

A standard-conforming "hello, world" program is:

The first line of the program contains a preprocessing directive, indicated by. This causes the compiler to replace that line with the entire text of the  standard header, which contains declarations for standard input and output functions such as. The angle brackets surrounding  indicate that   is located using a search strategy that prefers standard headers to other headers having the same name; double quotes are used to include local or project-specific header files.

The next line indicates that a function named  is being defined. The  function serves a special purpose in C programs; the run-time environment calls the   function to begin program execution. The type specifier  indicates that the value that is returned to the invoker (in this case the run-time environment) as a result of evaluating the   function, is an integer. The keyword  as a parameter list indicates that this function takes no arguments.

The opening curly brace indicates the beginning of the definition of the  function.

The next line calls (diverts execution to) a function named, which is supplied from a system library. In this call, the  function is passed (provided with) a single argument, the address of the first character in the string literal. The string literal is an unnamed array with elements of type, set up automatically by the compiler with a final 0-valued character to mark the end of the array (  needs to know this). The  is an escape sequence that C translates to a newline character, which on output signifies the end of the current line. The return value of the  function is of type , but it is silently discarded since it is not used. (A more careful program might test the return value to determine whether or not the  function succeeded.) The semicolon   terminates the statement.

The closing curly brace indicates the end of the code for the  function. According to the C99 specification and newer,  function will implicitly return a status of   upon reaching the   that terminates the function. This is interpreted by the run-time system as an exit code indicating successful execution.

Data types
C has a static weak typing type system that shares some similarities with that of other ALGOL descendants such as Pascal. There are built-in types for integers of various sizes, both signed and unsigned, floating-point numbers, characters, and enumerated types. C99 added a boolean datatype. There are also derived types including arrays, pointers, records, and untagged unions.

C is often used in low-level systems programming where escapes from the type system may be necessary. The compiler attempts to ensure type correctness of most expressions, but the programmer can override the checks in various ways, either by using a type cast to explicitly convert a value from one type to another, or by using pointers or unions to reinterpret the underlying bits of a data object in some other way.

Some find C's declaration syntax unintuitive, particularly for function pointers. (Ritchie's idea was to declare identifiers in contexts resembling their use: "declaration reflects use".)

C's usual arithmetic conversions allow for efficient code to be generated, but can sometimes produce unexpected results. For example, a comparison of signed and unsigned integers of equal width requires a conversion of the signed value to unsigned. This can generate unexpected results if the signed value is negative.

Pointers
C supports the use of pointers, a type of reference that records the address or location of an object or function in memory. Pointers can be dereferenced to access data stored at the address pointed to, or to invoke a pointed-to function. Pointers can be manipulated using assignment or pointer arithmetic. The run-time representation of a pointer value is typically a raw memory address (perhaps augmented by an offset-within-word field), but since a pointer's type includes the type of the thing pointed to, expressions including pointers can be type-checked at compile time. Pointer arithmetic is automatically scaled by the size of the pointed-to data type. Pointers are used for many different purposes in C. Text strings are commonly manipulated using pointers into arrays of characters. Dynamic memory allocation is performed using pointers. Many data types, such as trees, are commonly implemented as dynamically allocated  objects linked together using pointers. Pointers to functions are useful for passing functions as arguments to higher-order functions (such as qsort or bsearch) or as callbacks to be invoked by event handlers.

A null pointer value explicitly points to no valid location. Dereferencing a null pointer value is undefined, often resulting in a segmentation fault. Null pointer values are useful for indicating special cases such as no "next" pointer in the final node of a linked list, or as an error indication from functions returning pointers. In appropriate contexts in source code, such as for assigning to a pointer variable, a null pointer constant can be written as, with or without explicit casting to a pointer type, or as the   macro defined by several standard headers. In conditional contexts, null pointer values evaluate to false, while all other pointer values evaluate to true.

Void pointers point to objects of unspecified type, and can therefore be used as "generic" data pointers. Since the size and type of the pointed-to object is not known, void pointers cannot be dereferenced, nor is pointer arithmetic on them allowed, although they can easily be (and in many contexts implicitly are) converted to and from any other object pointer type.

Careless use of pointers is potentially dangerous. Because they are typically unchecked, a pointer variable can be made to point to any arbitrary location, which can cause undesirable effects. Although properly used pointers point to safe places, they can be made to point to unsafe places by using invalid pointer arithmetic; the objects they point to may be deallocated and reused (dangling pointers); they may be used without having been initialized (wild pointers); or they may be directly assigned an unsafe value using a cast, union, or through another corrupt pointer. In general, C is permissive in allowing manipulation of and conversion between pointer types, although compilers typically provide options for various levels of checking. Some other programming languages address these problems by using more restrictive reference types.

Arrays
Array types in C are traditionally of a fixed, static size specified at compile time. (The more recent C99 standard also allows a form of variable-length arrays.) However, it is also possible to allocate a block of memory (of arbitrary size) at run-time, using the standard library's   function, and treat it as an array. C's unification of arrays and pointers means that declared arrays and these dynamically allocated simulated arrays are virtually interchangeable.

Since arrays are always accessed (in effect) via pointers, array accesses are typically not checked against the underlying array size, although some compilers may provide bounds checking as an option. Array bounds violations are therefore possible and rather common in carelessly written code, and can lead to various repercussions, including illegal memory accesses, corruption of data, buffer overruns, and run-time exceptions. If bounds checking is desired, it must be done manually.

C does not have a special provision for declaring multidimensional arrays, but rather relies on recursion within the type system to declare arrays of arrays, which effectively accomplishes the same thing. The index values of the resulting "multidimensional array" can be thought of as increasing in row-major order.

Multidimensional arrays are commonly used in numerical algorithms (mainly from applied linear algebra) to store matrices. The structure of the C array is well suited to this particular task. However, since arrays are passed merely as pointers, the bounds of the array must be known fixed values or else explicitly passed to any subroutine that requires them, and dynamically sized arrays of arrays cannot be accessed using double indexing. (A workaround for this is to allocate the array with an additional "row vector" of pointers to the columns.)

C99 introduced "variable-length arrays" which address some, but not all, of the issues with ordinary C arrays.

Array-pointer interchangeability
The subscript notation  (where   designates a pointer) is a syntactic sugar for. Taking advantage of the compiler's knowledge of the pointer type, the address that  points to is not the base address (pointed to by  ) incremented by   bytes, but rather is defined to be the base address incremented by   multiplied by the size of an element that   points to.

Furthermore, in most expression contexts (a notable exception is as operand of ), the name of an array is automatically converted to a pointer to the array's first element; thus for an array declared with the name ,   designates the  th element of the array. This also implies that an array is never copied as a whole when named as an argument to a function, but rather only the address of its first element is passed. Therefore, although function calls in C use pass-by-value semantics, arrays are in effect passed by reference.

The size of an element can be determined by applying the operator  to any dereferenced element of , as in   or  , and the number of elements in a declared array   can be determined as. The latter only applies to array names: variables declared with subscripts. Due to the semantics of C, it is not possible to determine the entire size of arrays through pointers to arrays or those created by dynamic allocation ; code such as  (where   designates a pointer) will not work since the compiler assumes the size of the pointer itself is being requested. Since array name arguments to  are not converted to pointers, they do not exhibit such ambiguity. However, arrays created by dynamic allocation are initialized to pointers rather than true array variables, so they suffer from the same  issues as array pointers.

Thus, despite this apparent equivalence between array and pointer variables, there is still a distinction to be made between them. Even though the name of an array is, in most expression contexts, converted into a pointer (to its first element), this pointer does not itself occupy any storage; the array name is not an lvalue, and its address is a constant, unlike a pointer variable. Consequently, what an array "points to" cannot be changed, and it is impossible to assign a new address to an array name. Array contents may be copied, however, by using the  function, or by accessing the individual elements.

Memory management
One of the most important functions of a programming language is to provide facilities for managing memory and the objects that are stored in memory. C provides three distinct ways to allocate memory for objects:
 * Static memory allocation: space for the object is provided in the binary at compile-time; these objects have an extent (or lifetime) as long as the binary which contains them is loaded into memory.
 * Automatic memory allocation: temporary objects can be stored on the stack, and this space is automatically freed and reusable after the block in which they are declared is exited.
 * Dynamic memory allocation: blocks of memory of arbitrary size can be requested at run-time using library functions such as  from a region of memory called the heap; these blocks persist until subsequently freed for reuse by calling the library function   or

These three approaches are appropriate in different situations and have various tradeoffs. For example, static memory allocation has little allocation overhead, automatic allocation may involve slightly more overhead, and dynamic memory allocation can potentially have a great deal of overhead for both allocation and deallocation. The persistent nature of static objects is useful for maintaining state information across function calls, automatic allocation is easy to use but stack space is typically much more limited and transient than either static memory or heap space, and dynamic memory allocation allows convenient allocation of objects whose size is known only at run-time. Most C programs make extensive use of all three.

Where possible, automatic or static allocation is usually simplest because the storage is managed by the compiler, freeing the programmer of the potentially error-prone chore of manually allocating and releasing storage. However, many data structures can change in size at runtime, and since static allocations (and automatic allocations before C99) must have a fixed size at compile-time, there are many situations in which dynamic allocation is necessary. Prior to the C99 standard, variable-sized arrays were a common example of this. (See the article on  for an example of dynamically allocated arrays.) Unlike automatic allocation, which can fail at run time with uncontrolled consequences, the dynamic allocation functions return an indication (in the form of a null pointer value) when the required storage cannot be allocated. (Static allocation that is too large is usually detected by the linker or loader, before the program can even begin execution.)

Unless otherwise specified, static objects contain zero or null pointer values upon program startup. Automatically and dynamically allocated objects are initialized only if an initial value is explicitly specified; otherwise they initially have indeterminate values (typically, whatever bit pattern happens to be present in the storage, which might not even represent a valid value for that type). If the program attempts to access an uninitialized value, the results are undefined. Many modern compilers try to detect and warn about this problem, but both false positives and false negatives can occur.

Another issue is that heap memory allocation has to be synchronized with its actual usage in any program in order for it to be reused as much as possible. For example, if the only pointer to a heap memory allocation goes out of scope or has its value overwritten before  is called, then that memory cannot be recovered for later reuse and is essentially lost to the program, a phenomenon known as a memory leak. Conversely, it is possible for memory to be freed but continue to be referenced, leading to unpredictable results. Typically, the symptoms will appear in a portion of the program far removed from the actual error, making it difficult to track down the problem. (Such issues are ameliorated in languages with automatic garbage collection.)

Libraries
The C programming language uses libraries as its primary method of extension. In C, a library is a set of functions contained within a single "archive" file. Each library typically has a header file, which contains the prototypes of the functions contained within the library that may be used by a program, and declarations of special data types and macro symbols used with these functions. In order for a program to use a library, it must include the library's header file, and the library must be linked with the program, which in many cases requires compiler flags (e.g.,, shorthand for "math library").

The most common C library is the C standard library, which is specified by the ISO and ANSI C standards and comes with every C implementation. (Implementations which target limited environments such as embedded systems may provide only a subset of the standard library.) This library supports stream input and output, memory allocation, mathematics, character strings, and time values. Several separate standard headers (for example, ) specify the interfaces for these and other standard library facilities.

Another common set of C library functions are those used by applications specifically targeted for Unix and Unix-like systems, especially functions which provide an interface to the kernel. These functions are detailed in various standards such as POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification.

Since many programs have been written in C, there are a wide variety of other libraries available. Libraries are often written in C because C compilers generate efficient object code; programmers then create interfaces to the library so that the routines can be used from higher-level languages like Java, Perl, and Python.

Language tools
Tools have been created to help C programmers avoid some of the problems inherent in the language, such as statements with undefined behavior or statements that are not a good practice because they are likely to result in unintended behavior or run-time errors.

Automated source code checking and auditing are beneficial in any language, and for C many such tools exist, such as Lint. A common practice is to use Lint to detect questionable code when a program is first written. Once a program passes Lint, it is then compiled using the C compiler. Also, many compilers can optionally warn about syntactically valid constructs that are likely to actually be errors. MISRA C is a proprietary set of guidelines to avoid such questionable code, developed for embedded systems.

There are also compilers, libraries, and operating system level mechanisms for performing actions that are not a standard part of C, such as array bounds checking, buffer overflow detection, serialization, and automatic garbage collection.

Tools such as Purify or Valgrind and linking with libraries containing special versions of the memory allocation functions can help uncover runtime errors in memory usage.

Uses
C is often used for "system programming", including implementing operating systems and embedded system applications, due to a combination of desirable characteristics such as code portability and efficiency, ability to access specific hardware addresses, ability to pun types to match externally imposed data access requirements, and low run-time demand on system resources. C can also be used for website programming using CGI as a "gateway" for information between the Web application, the server, and the browser. Some reasons for choosing C over interpreted languages are its speed, stability, and near-universal availability.

One consequence of C's wide availability and efficiency is that compilers, libraries, and interpreters of other programming languages are often implemented in C. The primary implementations of Python (CPython), Perl 5, and PHP are all written in C.

Due to its thin layer of abstraction and low overhead, C allows efficient implementations of algorithms and data structures, which is useful for programs that perform a lot of computations. For example, the GNU Multi-Precision Library, the GNU Scientific Library, Mathematica and MATLAB are completely or partially written in C.

C is sometimes used as an intermediate language by implementations of other languages, sometimes referred to as C intermediate language (CIL). This approach may be used for portability or convenience; by using C as an intermediate language, it is not necessary to develop machine-specific code generators. C has some features, such as line-number preprocessor directives and optional superfluous commas at the end of initializer lists, which support compilation of generated code. However, some of C's shortcomings have prompted the development of other C-based languages specifically designed for use as intermediate languages, such as C--. Several other tools use CIL as a way to have access to a C abstract syntax tree. Some of these utilities are Frama-c (a framework for analysis of C programs) or Compcert (a C compiler proven in coq). CIL was originally designed and implemented in 2002 by George Necula et al.

C has also been widely used to implement end-user applications, but much of that development has shifted to newer languages.

Related languages
C has directly or indirectly influenced many later languages such as C#, D, Go, Java, JavaScript, Limbo, LPC, Perl, PHP, Python, and Unix's C Shell. The most pervasive influence has been syntactical: all of the languages mentioned combine the statement and (more or less recognizably) expression syntax of C with type systems, data models and/or large-scale program structures that differ from those of C, sometimes radically.

Several C or near-C interpreters exist, including Ch and CINT, which can also be used for scripting.

When object-oriented languages became popular, C++ and Objective-C were two different extensions of C that provided object-oriented capabilities. Both languages were originally implemented as source-to-source compilers; source code was translated into C, and then compiled with a C compiler.

The C++ programming language was devised by Bjarne Stroustrup as one approach to providing object-oriented functionality with C-like syntax. C++ adds greater typing strength, scoping, and other tools useful in object-oriented programming and permits generic programming via templates. Nearly a superset of C, C++ now supports most of C, with a few exceptions (see Compatibility of C and C++).

Objective-C was originally a very "thin" layer on top of C, and remains a strict superset of C that permits object-oriented programming using a hybrid dynamic/static typing paradigm. Objective-C derives its syntax from both C and Smalltalk: syntax that involves preprocessing, expressions, function declarations, and function calls is inherited from C, while the syntax for object-oriented features was originally taken from Smalltalk.

In addition to C++ and Objective-C, Ch, Cilk and Unified Parallel C are nearly supersets of C.

@
I am so confused. This page says that the at sign (@) is part of the C character set, but I can not find any information on what it is used for. Anybody who knows? 5.150.218.51 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An "@" would be legal in quoted strings, for instance. The point of the comment is that C source uses the POSIX character set (the same as US-ASCII) TEDickey (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Then why does the list not include dollar sign and backtick? 5.150.218.51 (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The ANSI committee purposely limited the character set to a small superset of ISO 646; specifically, starting with the "invariant" ISO 646 subset of ASCII and adding the few additional characters C already used (such as brackets). The backtick (`) and US dollar sign ($) are not part of either ISO 646, nor were they in use by existing C (as of 1988), so that's probably why they were not included. Later when the ANSI proposal became an ISO proposal, trigraphs and later digraphs were added in order to support compilers in environments having only the ISO 646 subset available. Some of this is discussed in section 5.2.1 in the Rationale document, but not these two characters specifically. While it's true that the at-sign (@) is also not part of ISO 646, it could be argued that it is a character required for network protocols (e.g. RFC 822), so perhaps that's why it was included. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Section 6.4.3 Universal character names in ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) mentions '$'. VAX C for one did allow dollar signs in identifiers (Apollo's C compiler did also, I recall - but I can cite VAX C more readily). TEDickey (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good answer, thanks. Also, GNU cpp apparently allows dollar signs in identifiers as an option. 5.150.218.51 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think @ is part of the C character set. That it is "legal within quoted strings" seems not relevant, because there are many other characters that can included within quoted strings, but they are not listed as part of the C character set. And I don't think it matters that @ is a part of network protocols, because that would still relate to @ being in a quoted string, unless I am missing something. Bottom line: what is an example where @ is used as part of C syntax, is not in a quoted string, and compiles? 71.212.102.14 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Leave it out.  Nasnema   Chat  06:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, @ is simply not part of the C character set. The standard is quite explicit about what is.  Rwessel (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello World Example
I feel that the hello word program should return 0 since this program could fail on some compilers. It's also worth noting that in C99 int main can be left without a return value at which point it defaults to returning 0, see C99

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LawrencePJ (talk • contribs)


 * This comes up constantly. Everybody has a conflicting opinion as to the "correct" example.  Best to just leave it alone. - Richfife (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that the return-less version should not fail on any C89/99/11 compliant compiler. While the value returned is specified only in C99 and later, the return-less form is valid in C89, but the actual value returned to the OS is indeterminate.  From the C89 standard:


 * 2.1.2.2 Hosted environment
 * Program termination
 * A return from the initial call to the main function is equivalent to calling the exit function with the value returned by the main function as its argument. If the main function executes a return that specifies no value, the termination status returned to the host environment is undefined.
 * Rwessel (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rwessel (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not just make the main return void? --174.106.183.23 (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because there are, per the standard, only two allowable forms of main ("int main(void)" and "int main(int argc, char *argv[])" - or equivalents for the second form). IOW, the only standards conforming versions of main return int.  Section 5.1.2.2.1 of the standard is quoted in the second "Hello world" discussion below, if you're interested.  While some implementation might provide/allow a void returning form as an (allowed) extension, support for that is not guaranteed to be universal.  Rwessel (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

c++ as preprocessor
"C++ and Objective-C started as preprocessors for C"-sounds weird, and I cant understand what does it mean "as preprocessors". If its how c++ started, why there is no clue for it in c++ essay? Uziel302 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The wording is awkward: they were initially preprocessors which read C++/Objective-C source and produced C programs (this was by the way before C was standardized). The C++ topic lacks most of the technical information which would make it interesting, because that is (presumably) covered in the various sources referred to. TEDickey (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The more correct wording is that C++ and Objective C started out as compilers that generated C code (instead of generating assembly code or binary code). While some people did refer to them as "preprocessors", this is misleading and technically incorrect. The first Bell Labs C++ compiler by Stroustrup was named cfront, alluding to the fact that it was a C++ compiler "front end" to the existing C compiler. The way compilers operate is very different from the way preprocessors operate. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh. It's kind of between the two.  C++ Precomprocessorilers don't necessarily change the input at all (except to mangle the function names) and in almost all cases leave most of the source alone.  I'm perfectly fine with either term, though, as long as it doesn't thrash back and forth. - Richfife (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, preprocessors do text token manipulations, which is purely lexical processing, but compilers use syntactical and semantic parsing, which includes recognizing data types and managing symbol tables (which add another two or three levels of processing on top of lexical scanning). While the output of both may be pure C, the internal operation of each to generate that output is vastly different. Also, the claim that most of the source code is left alone is simply not true, especially when compiling expressions containing virtual class member function calls, user-defined member operators, object allocations/deallocations, and class vtables, all of which generate fairly complicated intermediate C code. Even the earliest C++ front-end compilers did far more than just mangle names. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the meanings of these terms -- preprocessor and compiler -- are as precise as you make them out to be. Certainly the early C++ engines (for lack of a better term) that generated C did significantly more than the C macro preprocessor, but that doesn't mean it is inappropriate to refer to the C++ engine as a preprocessor of sorts.  But the potential confusion with the C preprocessor is concerning. The term compiler traditionally refers to software that takes high level human-readable source and generates executable code, so these early C++ engines were arguably not compilers, at least not in the traditional sense.  You'd have to expand the scope of the term's meaning to apply it to the early engines like cfront.  I mean, if the output of a process is something that still requires compiling, the process that produced that output can hardly be called a compiler. But there should be a way through this semantic minefield that will allow for a clear and unambiguous explanation.


 * Or this. Cue arguments as to whether C is lower level tier than C++ in 3, 2, 1... - Richfife (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hello, world!" program
Can you please provide a reason for reverting my sourced edit and putting that vandalism notice at my talk ? Regards. —ШαмıQ ✍ @ 11:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to advocate a bit... Function   is supposed to be returning an , and character   isn't what indicates an instruction to the compiler.  The whole source code is just a bunch of instructions to the compiler, while character   denotes a preprocessor directive. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I knew about that, but I used words as written in the book. You could have simply corrected that to preprocessor directive instead of removing the whole thing. And regarding the  : The function   is not supposed to return anything here; why specify the data type,  , then? —ШαмıQ  ✍ @ 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it wasn't me reverting your edit. Regarding the 's return type, here's what the ISO C standard says in section 5.1.2.2.1:

The function called at program startup is named. The implementation declares no prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a return type of  and with no parameters:



or with two parameters (referred to here as  and , though any names may be used, as they are local to the function in which they are declared):



or equivalent;[1] or in some other implementation-defined manner.

[1] Thus,  can be replaced by a typedef name defined as , or the type of   can be written as  , and so on.

With the specified example, it's all about being more close to the standard. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, you weren't reverting me. But you advocated for, and that was why I said so. Well, I get your point, but don't you think  will be easier for beginners to follow? Not specifying anything might be easier for beginners to understand than specifying the data type of the return value when the function doesn't return anything. —ШαмıQ  ✍ @ 15:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, I got your point. Let's see what Tedickey is also going to comment there.  Also, please have a look at this discussion, in my opinion that would be a much better option &mdash; with   instead of , of course. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While "void main" may be accepted by some compilers (perhaps even most), it is *not* a valid C program per the standard. A sample of an invalid program, which might not even compile on many systems, would make a poor example.  Now whether Hello World is actually a good example is a different question, but given its very long history, and particular association with C, including it seems quite reasonable.  But then that leads to the immediate issue of having an obsolete form (the original K&R version listed), which also will have problems on many systems, so supplying a modern version would seem necessary.  I'm not sure where the second version came from, but as a general concept I would not be opposed to including an explicit "return 0", although that is certainly not required by the standard, and thus would make this not a "minimal" sample (which is what Hello World is supposed to be).  If the second form was included, for example, in K&R2 (I'll check my copy of that later today), then that would be an argument for leaving it as-is.  But in no case would "void main" be acceptable as an example.  Rwessel (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * K&R2 uses the first form. The second is using the C standard, which has been the form used by consensus for quite a while (changing the well-established example to a spurious one which contradicts the standard is an error). TEDickey (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But for beginners, the program must be simple enough (without going into the details of return values).  would simply let the beginner know that there is no return value... Adhering to the standard, the   specification may seem obscure to a novice. I think sacrificing adherence to the standard for just this program, so that the beginner doesn't need to know the technicalities is not a bad deal.—ШαмıQ  ✍ @ 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, an incorrect program seems less than helpful. Rwessel (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, Hello World did change in K&R2 - they added the include, but did not alter the definition of main. Of course not specifying a return type in this case means the function implicitly returns an int anyway.  Rwessel (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * no - for beginners it is best to not confuse them with inaccurate information. If you choose to look into the history of this issue, you will note that there are far more reliable sources citing the standard. TEDickey (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd sum it up saying that C is specific (and weird) enough that even beginners simply have to reach the point where understanding unobvious things becomes someone's second nature. Having that in mind,   explicitly returning nothing is the least weird thing. :)  Also, the whole thing with the return value is already described at the end of "Hello, world" section, so it should be good. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is all you want, let it be. But I found  used in quite a few books and figured out that there should be no problem to make it so here. —ШαмıQ  ✍ @ 05:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * sure - for instance Schildt. Be familiar with your topic before making improvements TEDickey (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yes, many books do actually get that wrong.  That's more a problem of a large number of bad books on C programming.  It's an issue of portability - a specific implementation might accept "void main", and even do what you'd hope with it.  An implementation *is* free to include an extension like that.  But it won't work everywhere.  And since this article is about C in general, and not a specific implementation, using that extension in a sample is a problem.  Especially if the description of the sample includes the words "standard-conforming."  And if we did use an extension in the sample, we'd then be stuck trying to explain where the sample is actually valid.  Consider a similar situation with the character set - while the vast majority of C implementations use ASCII, there are certainly some that don't.  Including a sample of code that didn't work on a non-ASCII implementation, especially if it was easily avoidable, would just be wrong.  Rwessel (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Very well said, second that. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)