Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: transpiling to low level C Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 20:55:04 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 43 Message-ID: <86y105d6jb.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86ikrdg6yq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20241223134008.000058cf@yahoo.com> <86frmedrof.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87ldw5x68c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 05:55:04 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b35227985084685f7db26e049ff6a4a"; logging-data="1748707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18o7mCI4OFZKbtbEq0x7ZBq0Etoe1PmnPw=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:l+Nwo2DqfU2cuLzSyu45dVnAuZU= sha1:nHoloQFemqG05rPyQ5jqK9e2Ff8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:389810 Ben Bacarisse writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 09:46:46 +0100 >>> David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> And Tim did not rule out using the standard library, >>> >>> Are you sure? >> >> I explicitly called out setjmp and longjmp as being excluded. >> Based on that, it's reasonable to infer the rest of the >> standard library is allowed. >> >> Furthermore I don't think it matters. > > Hmm... I'm puzzled. Where does the unbounded store come from without > I/O? Do you take "C is Turing complete" to mean that there is a > theoretically possible implementation of C sufficient for any given > problem instance (rather than for any given problem)? That's not how > different models are usually compared, and I think it would run into > some rather odd theoretical problems. Sorry, it seems my comment was misleading. I thought it was apparent from the rest of my paragraph (not shown in your excerpt) that my statement was meant as "Furthermore I don't think it matters if _most_ of the standard library is excluded." There had been a mention of printf as being infringing (which in my view is silly, but never mind that), so I wanted to point out that most of the standard library is irrelevant, including in particular [f]printf. > There is a somewhat informal version of "C (with the restrictions you > have stated) is Turing complete" which just means "you can do anything > you want provided you don't hit an implementation limit". Yes, I'm familiar with that, and I knowingly glossed over the distinction, because I think it's customary, when talking about Turing Completeness relative to conventional programming languages, to ignore the finiteness of conventional language models. I should have known better with you in the audience. You got me! :)