Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #389665 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-15 00:05 -0300 |
| Last post | 2025-02-09 12:43 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 140 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 00:05 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-15 04:31 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 07:44 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-15 22:22 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 20:22 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 01:02 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 08:17 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-16 11:46 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 19:44 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 13:59 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-16 23:36 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-14 20:39 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 07:49 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 13:01 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 21:01 -0800
USENET and spam (Was: Re: transpiling to low level C) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-16 10:17 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-15 11:28 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 08:46 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 09:13 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 20:08 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-15 21:32 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-15 17:53 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-16 10:36 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 08:21 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 01:03 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 14:55 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 14:59 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 15:16 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 18:37 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:07 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 19:42 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 12:51 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 16:43 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 18:27 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-19 00:35 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 23:46 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-19 11:27 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-19 14:36 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-20 05:10 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-23 02:08 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 05:15 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 13:07 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:33 -0300
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 12:51 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-21 05:34 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-16 18:12 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-16 18:37 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-16 21:39 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-16 23:26 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-12-16 17:19 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 00:40 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 16:17 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:18 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-17 18:46 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 22:45 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-18 00:23 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-18 01:24 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-18 03:51 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-18 17:26 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 12:13 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-18 17:19 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:29 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-20 17:28 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-21 21:31 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-21 13:51 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 01:22 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-13 08:10 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-22 00:20 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 01:13 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-22 02:18 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 01:39 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-22 03:04 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 03:06 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-22 17:39 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-23 02:41 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-23 08:43 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-25 00:51 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-28 09:20 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-04 12:12 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 12:53 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-01-05 11:18 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-05 12:04 -0500
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-07 21:38 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-12-21 22:17 -0500
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 19:51 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-06 11:50 -0700
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-23 13:02 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 13:25 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 15:50 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-22 06:01 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-22 11:22 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-22 11:35 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-22 10:38 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-22 19:44 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-04 11:18 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-12-22 20:41 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-23 00:20 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-12-23 15:41 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-23 15:51 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-23 18:05 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-23 14:05 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2024-12-22 23:29 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-23 09:46 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-23 11:35 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-23 13:18 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-23 13:40 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-12-23 13:24 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-23 13:18 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-12-24 00:41 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-23 20:55 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-25 03:41 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-25 15:43 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-28 09:24 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-28 13:59 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-31 04:57 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-12-23 13:28 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-23 14:00 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-12-22 14:19 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-12-22 15:30 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-12-22 21:45 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-22 23:22 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-12-22 23:47 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-12-22 17:22 -0800
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 21:23 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-12-17 11:16 +0200
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 12:04 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 12:51 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-18 12:08 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-12-18 12:50 -0600
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-18 23:37 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 19:40 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 19:45 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-17 22:25 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-17 22:55 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-18 05:55 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-12-19 00:32 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-16 21:22 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2024-12-26 13:16 +0100
Re: transpiling to low level C User One <noreply@invalid.com> - 2025-02-09 17:51 +0000
Re: transpiling to low level C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-09 12:43 -0800
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 11:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87cyh14ihg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #389853 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > A statement of fact is a statement concerning an objective question, > such as "Is every even number greater than 4 the sum of two prime > numbers?". A statement of fact can be right or wrong or true or > false, even if it isn't known at the present time which of those is > the case. The statement "Four colors suffice to color any planar > map such that adjacent regions do not have the same color" is a > statement of fact, both now and 60 years ago before the statement > had been proven. Both P==NP and P!=NP are statements of fact, even > though one of them must certainly be false; the key property is > that they are objective statements, subject to falsification. If I > say "The Earth is flat", that is a statement of fact, even though > the statement is false. I think you go too far. The word "fact" is not neutral as far as its truth is concerned, and writing "a statement of fact" does not significantly change that. Most dictionaries define a fact as something that is true (or at least supported by currently available evidence). One online essay[1] concludes that "A statement of fact is one that has objective content and is well-supported by the available evidence." [1] https://philosophersmag.com/the-fact-opinion-distinction/ -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlee39$1493k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389855 |
On 1/5/25 06:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> A statement of fact is a statement concerning an objective question, >> such as "Is every even number greater than 4 the sum of two prime >> numbers?". A statement of fact can be right or wrong or true or >> false, even if it isn't known at the present time which of those is >> the case. The statement "Four colors suffice to color any planar >> map such that adjacent regions do not have the same color" is a >> statement of fact, both now and 60 years ago before the statement >> had been proven. Both P==NP and P!=NP are statements of fact, even >> though one of them must certainly be false; the key property is >> that they are objective statements, subject to falsification. If I >> say "The Earth is flat", that is a statement of fact, even though >> the statement is false. > > I think you go too far. The word "fact" is not neutral as far as its > truth is concerned, and writing "a statement of fact" does not > significantly change that. Most dictionaries define a fact as something > that is true (or at least supported by currently available evidence). > One online essay[1] concludes that > > "A statement of fact is one that has objective content and is > well-supported by the available evidence." > > [1] https://philosophersmag.com/the-fact-opinion-distinction/ In US constitutional law, there is the concept of "False statements of fact". The distinction is important in that context because they have less protection under the First Amendment than true statements of fact. They still have some protection, but not if they are defamatory, false advertising, or commercial speech.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-07 21:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <865xmpamqp.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #389855 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> A statement of fact is a statement concerning an objective question, >> such as "Is every even number greater than 4 the sum of two prime >> numbers?". A statement of fact can be right or wrong or true or >> false, even if it isn't known at the present time which of those is >> the case. The statement "Four colors suffice to color any planar >> map such that adjacent regions do not have the same color" is a >> statement of fact, both now and 60 years ago before the statement >> had been proven. Both P==NP and P!=NP are statements of fact, even >> though one of them must certainly be false; the key property is >> that they are objective statements, subject to falsification. If I >> say "The Earth is flat", that is a statement of fact, even though >> the statement is false. > > I think you go too far. The word "fact" is not neutral as far as its > truth is concerned, and writing "a statement of fact" does not > significantly change that. Most dictionaries define a fact as something > that is true (or at least supported by currently available evidence). > One online essay[1] concludes that > > "A statement of fact is one that has objective content and is > well-supported by the available evidence." > > [1] https://philosophersmag.com/the-fact-opinion-distinction/ I will concede that the phrase "statement of fact" can be used in the sense you describe. I believe it is also true that "statement of fact" is used in the sense I describe, and that sense appears among the alternatives in various well-regarded dictionaries. In any case, my point was not to have a debate about the meaning of a phrase, but to clarify the intended meaning of my earlier remarks. I was making a statement about an objective question, one subject to independent verification or falsification. I was not offering a comment that was merely expressing a personal point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-21 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vk80c0$b5bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389770 |
On 12/21/24 20:04, Michael S wrote: ... > There is more than one school of teaching. One school believes that > students learn from explanations and exercises. Other school believes > that students learn best when provided with bare basics and then asked > to figure out the rest by themselves. I personally believe that Tim generally thinks there's a justification for what he says, and that we'd be better off figuring it out ourselves. I also know, from the rare occasions when he's been convinced to provide his justification, that I often don't consider his justification valid. However, he says things that seem to be unjustified so often, I can't help wondering if he doesn't occasionally say things he realizes are unjustified (either at the time, or as the result of subsequent discussion), and withholds his justifications in order to hide the fact that he knows he was wrong. Probably not, but I keep wondering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 19:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk9n32$oces$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389772 |
On 22.12.2024 04:17, James Kuyper wrote: > On 12/21/24 20:04, Michael S wrote: > ... >> There is more than one school of teaching. One school believes that >> students learn from explanations and exercises. Other school believes >> that students learn best when provided with bare basics and then asked >> to figure out the rest by themselves. In context of this newsgroup where my impression is that there's a lot of years long IT/CS experienced and quite old people discussing topics the explanatory "model" of "schools of teaching" is anyway completely inappropriate; there's not "one _teacher_ [who knows almost all]" and "all the rest are [ignorant] _pupils_" that need to be "guided" (in one way or the other). Not saying anything substantial on a topic can certainly be perceived as some rhetorical move but it's surely not any sort of teaching-didactics [of whatever "school of teaching"]). > > I personally believe that Tim generally thinks there's a justification > for what he says, and that we'd be better off figuring it out ourselves. (My impression is that he often says something on a topic where he has no deeper knowledge, but is pretending to know by not saying anything substantial.) > I also know, from the rare occasions when he's been convinced to provide > his justification, that I often don't consider his justification valid. > However, he says things that seem to be unjustified so often, I can't > help wondering if he doesn't occasionally say things he realizes are > unjustified (either at the time, or as the result of subsequent > discussion), and withholds his justifications in order to hide the fact > that he knows he was wrong. Probably not, but I keep wondering. (This matches with my observations and I drew a similar conclusion.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-06-06 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86frgcso0x.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #389770 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: I have been wanting to reply to this posting but it has taken time for my thoughts to sort themselves out. If anyone wants not to be bothered with responses to old postings they should feel free to skip this posting. (Some white space has been added.) > On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:39:49 +0100 > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 22.12.2024 01:18, Michael S wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 01:13:07 +0100 >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21.12.2024 23:20, Michael S wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:31:24 +0100 >>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So your statement asks for some explanation at least. >>>>> >>>>> I would guess that Tim worked as CS professor for several >>>>> dozens years. And it shows. I have taught at the college level (but not as a professor) in several disciplines. Computer science was one of them. What may be more relevant is I have been exposed to a wide range of teaching styles, so I have a lot of background to draw on. >>>> Ranks and titles are, per se, no guarantee. I'm not impressed; >>>> I've seen all sorts/qualities of professors. YMMV. >>>> >>>> If that is true (that he was one) I'm wondering why we observe >>>> so often that he posts statements here and doesn't care to >>>> explain it. At least the many _good_ professors I met in my >>>> life typically were keen to explain their theses, statements, >>>> or knowledge (instead of dragging that out of him). >>> >>> It seems, you didn't understand me. (Ogh, it is contagious ;-) >> >> I'm sorry, no. - I certainly took it literally - as I do (at >> first) with most people and their statements (until I get to >> know better). >> >> If it was meant sarcastically or anything, I'd appreciate a >> smiley or something like that. (It certainly wasn't obvious to >> me.) >> >> If it was meant serious and I completely missed the point - which >> may also happen occasionally - I'd appreciate a pointer. > > Part of the answer is in your previous response. You wrote: > "many _good_ professors I met in my life typically were keen to > explain their theses, statements, or knowledge (instead of > dragging that out of him)". You essentially admitted that not all > good professors behave like that. > > There is more than one school of teaching. One school believes > that students learn from explanations and exercises. Other school > believes that students learn best when provided with bare basics > and then asked to figure out the rest by themselves. There is > also the third school that believes that student don't really > learn anything before they try to explain it to somebody else. > > You make an impression of one that received basics of CS. > Probably, 40 or so years ago, but still you have to know basic > facts. Unlike me, for example. > > So, Tim expects that you will be able to utilizes his hints. And > that it would lead to much better understanding on your part then > if he feeds you by teaspoon. Just a general comment in response to the statements above. I don't (usually) think of posting in a newsgroup as teaching, but rather as a kind of public oration to a small, nebulously defined audience. It may be that I am primarily addressing one person, but that is done with the understanding that it is a (semi-)public comment and other people may be, or even often are, listening in. > That is one part. Another part is that he is annoyed by your > tone. In most cases my postings are motivated by one, or sometimes both, of two motivations: wanting to be helpful a desire for correctness Every so often I see a post where what is being sought is not necessarily an answer but a way of understanding a question so that they may arrive at an answer. I enjoy postings where I present a perspective for how to arrive at an answer rather than just offering a statement of what the answer is (which may be either a statement of fact, a statement of opinion, or a statement of belief). What I really like is the sense that my comments have been found helpful, which empirically happens about once a month. These are the best. More often it happens that a posting has a statement that looks wrong, either incomplete or partially inaccurate or just plain false, and where because of my background I want to offer a correction. (No doubt a large part of my reaction comes from my training in mathematics.) My usual practice in such cases is first to research the question to make sure my impression of wrongness is correct (and when I skip this step all too often it turns out badly). In cases where the research confirms my early impression, typically I will post a response with the hope of clarifying the misstep. Sometimes this goes well, other times not so much, for a variety of reasons. I don't enjoy getting dragged into newsgroup quicksand, and try to avoid it as much as possible. For reasons beyond my understanding, it appears that some participants actually want to jump into the quicksand, and as a result the conversation goes off the rails. I think it frustrates some people that I don't want to continue taking part in a conversation that seems to me to be no longer relevant to what I was trying to say. I don't want what I do (or don't do) to cause frustration for people; at the same time I don't think I should be obligated to put other peoples desires ahead of my own needs. I'm sorry if that view causes some people to be unhappy, but I don't see any reasonable way of changing it. Naturally there are other kinds of postings and conversations that I take part in. The discussion above isn't meant to be exhaustive. Depending on circumstances I give different kinds of responses. When a topic involves several competing forces typically I would give a more extensive response, to address the various different aspects. When a topic involves a single more linear kind of reasoning, sometimes it seems better to provide just a key piece and leave the rest to the readers. I do this for two reasons. One is a belief that it's more valuable to learn how to discover an answer than to be told what the answer is. The other is a consideration for the broader potential audience - I don't want to deprive other readers of the benefits of thinking things through and working things out for themselves. Given a choice between the two paths, this one seems better to me. There are several kinds of postings that irk me. One is shallow thinkers, people who habitually stop after at most one thought. Another is lazy thinkers, people who it seems clear could answer a question themselves if only they would apply themselves but for some reason they don't. I put in a fair amount of effort looking for answers to C questions, and it bothers me when someone wants me to answer a question only because they are too lazy to find it themselves. Especially annoying are people who act like I have some sort of obligation to "prove" something to them rather than even trying to consider different sides of a question; not just laziness, but almost pro-active laziness. In a related category are people who are looking not for an answer but an argument. I have no interest in arguing or trying to convince someone intent on arguing a point of view. I hope everyone can understand my lack of interest in such exchanges. On the flip side, I tend to give some slack to those who are suffering from some fundamental misunderstanding after making a concerted and earnest effort to figure things out themselves. I have run into such situations myself in the past, where often just a simple comment can clear up everything. One of my favorite sayings from Fred Brooks: Don't make the mistake of thinking someone is stupid just because they are ignorant. I hope the foregoing has provided some understanding of my motivations as to whether, why, and how I give the responses I do. (For those to chose to read the posting and made it through to the end, thank you for your attention.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 13:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86jzbqdsfp.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #389764 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:31:24 +0100 > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> So your statement asks for some explanation at least. > > I would guess that Tim worked as CS professor for several dozens years. > And it shows. I'm not sure whether to feel flattered or insulted. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkckgs$1cp7c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389801 |
On 12/23/2024 1:02 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:31:24 +0100 >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So your statement asks for some explanation at least. >> >> I would guess that Tim worked as CS professor for several dozens years. >> And it shows. > > I'm not sure whether to feel flattered or insulted. ;) AHAHA! lol. You forced me to laugh here. wow. :^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 15:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vkct0k$1eoa9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389803 |
On 12/23/2024 1:25 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 12/23/2024 1:02 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 21:31:24 +0100 >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> So your statement asks for some explanation at least. >>> >>> I would guess that Tim worked as CS professor for several dozens years. >>> And it shows. >> >> I'm not sure whether to feel flattered or insulted. ;) > > AHAHA! lol. You forced me to laugh here. wow. :^D merry christmas!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 06:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk8a0e$l8sq$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #389762 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto.
>>>
>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
>>
>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly
>> necessary either.
>
> No? - Can you give an example of your statement?
Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim
looked at my posts where I explained in detail how to translate
goto program (with conditional jumps) into program that contains
no goto and no conditional jumps).
Or try to figure out how to do this knowing that C has function
pointers.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 11:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20241222112251.00004d29@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #389773 |
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 06:01:52 -0000 (UTC) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote: > >>> > >>>> [...] > >>>> > >>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via > >>>> goto. > >>> > >>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is* > >>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and > >>> either 'goto' or recursive functions. > >> > >> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly > >> necessary either. > > > > No? - Can you give an example of your statement? > > Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim > looked at my posts where I explained in detail how to translate > goto program (with conditional jumps) into program that contains > no goto and no conditional jumps). Considering that Janis replied to your post I find a possibility that he did not look at it unlikely. Although not completely impossible. > > Or try to figure out how to do this knowing that C has function > pointers. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 11:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk8tip$jg7t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389774 |
On 22/12/2024 09:22, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 06:01:52 -0000 (UTC) > antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote: > >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via >>>>>> goto. >>>>> >>>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is* >>>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and >>>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions. >>>> >>>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly >>>> necessary either. >>> >>> No? - Can you give an example of your statement? >> >> Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim >> looked at my posts where I explained in detail how to translate >> goto program (with conditional jumps) into program that contains >> no goto and no conditional jumps). > > Considering that Janis replied to your post I find a possibility that > he did not look at it unlikely. Although not completely impossible. He only replied to the first remark. And summarised the rest with: "[ ponderings about where recursive functions might be used ]" (18-Dec, 16:26 GMT) I don't think JP does details, and I've struggled to find posts where he writes actual code. His replies to mine have mostly been about trying to beat me over the head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 10:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <861pxzftrg.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #389773 |
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote: >>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto. >>>> >>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is* >>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and >>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions. >>> >>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly >>> necessary either. >> >> No? - Can you give an example of your statement? > > Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim > looked at my posts [...] What makes you think I didn't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk9q7f$nn32$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #389778 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes:
>
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto.
>>>>>
>>>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
>>>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
>>>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
>>>>
>>>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly
>>>> necessary either.
>>>
>>> No? - Can you give an example of your statement?
>>
>> Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim
>> looked at my posts [...]
>
> What makes you think I didn't?
I made the same claim as you earlier and gave examples. You
did not acknowledge my posts. Why? For me most natural
explanation is that you did not read them.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 11:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86ikqu9ymo.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #389781 |
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >> >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> >>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto. >>>>>> >>>>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is* >>>>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and >>>>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions. >>>>> >>>>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly >>>>> necessary either. >>>> >>>> No? - Can you give an example of your statement? >>> >>> Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim >>> looked at my posts [...] >> >> What makes you think I didn't? > > I made the same claim as you earlier and gave examples. You > did not acknowledge my posts. Why? For me most natural > explanation is that you did not read them. You should revise your inference heuristics. There are any number of reasons why I might not have referred to your comments. Furthermore your conclusion is incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-22 20:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vk9q1p$oucu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389773 |
On 22.12.2024 07:01, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via goto.
>>>>
>>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
>>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
>>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
>>>
>>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly
>>> necessary either.
>>
>> No? - Can you give an example of your statement?
>
> Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim
> looked at my posts where I explained in detail how to translate
> goto program (with conditional jumps) into program that contains
> no goto and no conditional jumps).
I'm not sure but may have just skimmed over your "C" example if it
wasn't of interest to the point I tried to make (at that stage).
> Or try to figure out how to do this knowing that C has function
> pointers.
I will retry to explain what I tried to say... - very simply put...
There's "Recursive Functions" and the Turing Machines "equivalent".
The "Recursive Functions" is the most powerful class of algorithms.
Formal Recursive Functions are formally defined in terms of abstract
mathematical formulated properties; one of these [three properties]
are the "Test Sets". (Here I can already stop.)
But since we're not in a theoretical CS newsgroup I'd just wanted
to see an example of some common, say, mathematical function and
see it implemented without 'if' and 'goto' or recursion. - Take a
simple one, say, fac(n) = n! , the factorial function. I know how
I can implement that with 'if' and recursion, and I know how I can
implement that with 'while' (or 'goto').
If I re-inspect your example upthread - I hope it was the one you
wanted to refer to - I see that you have removed the 'if' symbol
but not the conditional, the test function; there's still the
predicate (the "Test Set") present in form of 'int c2 = i < n',
and it's there in the original code, in the goto transformed code,
and in the function-pointer code. And you cannot get rid of that.
Whether you have the test in an 'if', or in a ternary '?:', or
use it through a bool-int coercion as integer index to an indexed
function[-pointer] table; it's a conditional branch based on the
("Test Set") predicate i<n. You showed in your example how to get
rid of the 'if' symbol, but you could - as expected - not get rid
of the actual test that is the substance of a conditional branch.
I think that is what is to expect by the theory and the essence of
the point I tried to make.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20241223002048.00004d3c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #389780 |
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:41:44 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22.12.2024 07:01, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 21.12.2024 02:28, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 16.12.2024 00:53, BGB wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pretty much all higher level control flow can be expressed via
> >>>>> goto.
> >>>>
> >>>> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
> >>>> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
> >>>> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
> >>>
> >>> Conditional branches, including 'if', '?:', etc., are not strictly
> >>> necessary either.
> >>
> >> No? - Can you give an example of your statement?
> >
> > Look at example that I posted (apparently neither you nor Tim
> > looked at my posts where I explained in detail how to translate
> > goto program (with conditional jumps) into program that contains
> > no goto and no conditional jumps).
>
> I'm not sure but may have just skimmed over your "C" example if it
> wasn't of interest to the point I tried to make (at that stage).
>
> > Or try to figure out how to do this knowing that C has function
> > pointers.
>
> I will retry to explain what I tried to say... - very simply put...
>
> There's "Recursive Functions" and the Turing Machines "equivalent".
> The "Recursive Functions" is the most powerful class of algorithms.
> Formal Recursive Functions are formally defined in terms of abstract
> mathematical formulated properties; one of these [three properties]
> are the "Test Sets". (Here I can already stop.)
>
> But since we're not in a theoretical CS newsgroup I'd just wanted
> to see an example of some common, say, mathematical function and
> see it implemented without 'if' and 'goto' or recursion. - Take a
> simple one, say, fac(n) = n! , the factorial function. I know how
> I can implement that with 'if' and recursion, and I know how I can
> implement that with 'while' (or 'goto').
>
> If I re-inspect your example upthread - I hope it was the one you
> wanted to refer to - I see that you have removed the 'if' symbol
> but not the conditional, the test function; there's still the
> predicate (the "Test Set") present in form of 'int c2 = i < n',
> and it's there in the original code, in the goto transformed code,
> and in the function-pointer code. And you cannot get rid of that.
>
> Whether you have the test in an 'if', or in a ternary '?:', or
> use it through a bool-int coercion as integer index to an indexed
> function[-pointer] table; it's a conditional branch based on the
> ("Test Set") predicate i<n. You showed in your example how to get
> rid of the 'if' symbol, but you could - as expected - not get rid
> of the actual test that is the substance of a conditional branch.
>
> I think that is what is to expect by the theory and the essence of
> the point I tried to make.
>
> Janis
>
You make no sense. I am starting to suspect that the reason for it
is ignorance rather than mere stubbornness.
https://godbolt.org/z/EKo5rrYce
Show me conditional branch in the right pane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <UwfaP.15429$62H.7203@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #389783 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:41:44 +0100
>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Whether you have the test in an 'if', or in a ternary '?:', or
>> use it through a bool-int coercion as integer index to an indexed
>> function[-pointer] table; it's a conditional branch based on the
>> ("Test Set") predicate i<n. You showed in your example how to get
>> rid of the 'if' symbol, but you could - as expected - not get rid
>> of the actual test that is the substance of a conditional branch.
>>
>> I think that is what is to expect by the theory and the essence of
>> the point I tried to make.
>>
>> Janis
>>
>
>
>You make no sense. I am starting to suspect that the reason for it
>is ignorance rather than mere stubbornness.
>
>https://godbolt.org/z/EKo5rrYce
>Show me conditional branch in the right pane.
>
The 'C' in 'CSET' is short for conditional. Because
the branch is folded into the compare doesn't mean it
isn't there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vkc0tq$194b0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #389798 |
On 23/12/2024 15:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:41:44 +0100
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Whether you have the test in an 'if', or in a ternary '?:', or
>>> use it through a bool-int coercion as integer index to an indexed
>>> function[-pointer] table; it's a conditional branch based on the
>>> ("Test Set") predicate i<n. You showed in your example how to get
>>> rid of the 'if' symbol, but you could - as expected - not get rid
>>> of the actual test that is the substance of a conditional branch.
>>>
>>> I think that is what is to expect by the theory and the essence of
>>> the point I tried to make.
>>>
>>> Janis
>>>
>>
>>
>> You make no sense. I am starting to suspect that the reason for it
>> is ignorance rather than mere stubbornness.
>>
>> https://godbolt.org/z/EKo5rrYce
>> Show me conditional branch in the right pane.
>>
>
> The 'C' in 'CSET' is short for conditional. Because
> the branch is folded into the compare doesn't mean it
> isn't there.
That's just a mnemomic, which doesn't exist in the x86 version.
Anyway, 'w0' seems to be set either way, and the program counter will
point to the same instruction in each case too.
So there's no branching at this level of code, unless you consider
stepping PC to the next instruction to be a jump.
How is it 'folded into' the compare anyway? Are they not two independent
instructions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-23 18:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20241223180548.0000239c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #389798 |
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:41:40 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> >On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 20:41:44 +0100
> >Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >>
> >> Whether you have the test in an 'if', or in a ternary '?:', or
> >> use it through a bool-int coercion as integer index to an indexed
> >> function[-pointer] table; it's a conditional branch based on the
> >> ("Test Set") predicate i<n. You showed in your example how to get
> >> rid of the 'if' symbol, but you could - as expected - not get rid
> >> of the actual test that is the substance of a conditional branch.
> >>
> >> I think that is what is to expect by the theory and the essence of
> >> the point I tried to make.
> >>
> >> Janis
> >>
> >
> >
> >You make no sense. I am starting to suspect that the reason for it
> >is ignorance rather than mere stubbornness.
> >
> >https://godbolt.org/z/EKo5rrYce
> >Show me conditional branch in the right pane.
> >
>
> The 'C' in 'CSET' is short for conditional. Because
> the branch is folded into the compare doesn't mean it
> isn't there.
No, branch is not "folded". It is absent. CSET is an ALU operation.
The logical-arithmetic nature of comparison operator is even more
pronounced in code that gcc generates for POWER
https://godbolt.org/z/8Gs9s6nEo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web