Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #129216 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-15 10:38 +0200 |
| Last post | 2018-04-15 23:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-15 10:38 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 02:31 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-15 13:42 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-15 18:00 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-15 18:11 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-15 19:30 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-15 18:52 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:15 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-15 20:42 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-15 22:31 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-15 23:29 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-16 07:48 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 23:22 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-16 11:52 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-16 09:56 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 01:58 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 10:08 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 11:37 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-16 22:42 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 12:54 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 13:02 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 14:39 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 14:53 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 16:32 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 14:41 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 15:56 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 17:21 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 15:43 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 17:00 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 16:09 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 17:22 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 09:35 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 11:42 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 14:14 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-17 15:49 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 18:45 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 23:00 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-17 21:18 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 23:20 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 09:27 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 11:30 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 03:43 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 22:58 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 04:01 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 12:39 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 06:52 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 13:59 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 06:14 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-19 07:39 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 06:14 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 16:31 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 08:00 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 17:26 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 08:37 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-18 16:12 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 18:15 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 04:01 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 13:01 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 04:15 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 13:41 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 05:35 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 12:26 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 13:58 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 22:29 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-18 10:34 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 22:34 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 22:35 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-19 20:05 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 08:07 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-19 23:34 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-19 16:05 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 00:18 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-25 23:12 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 16:15 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 11:39 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 23:46 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 05:04 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 13:27 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 06:06 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-20 13:05 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 01:23 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 01:40 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 12:04 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 04:16 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 13:48 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-04-23 11:53 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-23 20:33 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 01:00 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-20 09:17 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 19:25 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-20 11:58 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-04-20 12:30 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 21:03 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-04-20 22:16 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 23:09 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 14:42 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 09:30 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 07:24 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 20:43 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 07:59 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 08:01 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 21:18 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 09:17 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-20 23:15 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 02:14 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 09:54 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 01:21 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 11:40 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-18 11:26 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-18 01:48 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-18 09:58 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-16 16:45 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 17:31 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 18:53 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 17:55 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 19:01 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-04-16 20:28 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-16 21:57 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 09:45 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 12:24 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 14:31 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-16 16:59 -0500
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 01:02 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 09:47 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 13:16 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 14:38 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-17 13:18 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 14:37 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 06:44 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 15:58 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-17 15:43 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:47 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:04 +1200
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 20:30 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-04-16 16:31 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-04-20 14:22 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 00:42 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 07:00 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-16 16:35 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 09:28 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-04-16 17:42 +0000
Re: stdcbench benchmark Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-16 17:07 -0500
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 02:50 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 12:42 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 11:58 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-17 14:01 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 13:40 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-17 15:41 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 14:46 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 06:09 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 16:07 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 14:43 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 15:26 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 07:42 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 16:51 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:07 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 08:16 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 23:17 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 17:12 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 23:26 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-04-17 23:38 +0100
Re: stdcbench benchmark Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 05:52 -0700
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 16:10 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-04-17 10:02 +0200
Re: stdcbench benchmark Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2018-04-15 23:20 +0200
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7e8fde2-da22-49fe-a6cd-5a9eea1c89cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129462 |
On Thursday, 19 April 2018 20:05:26 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > David is on holiday so perhaps someone else can pitch in. Not if they have sense and self-respect. Now David's not around for pig-wrestling you want someone else to join you in the mud? It's long been clear that you won't listen to any kind of coherent explanations for /anything/ that disagrees with the preconceptions drawn from your limited experience. There is no point in attempting any dialogue with you, so I would suggest the most sensible approach is to ignore you. I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group view your unchallenged opinions as facts, but I think it's a risk worth taking in the hope that we get an improvement in the light/heat ratio here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 01:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c859173-15b7-4629-b9f4-706d927657ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129489 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:23:57 AM UTC-7, mark.b...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, 19 April 2018 20:05:26 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > > David is on holiday so perhaps someone else can pitch in. > > Not if they have sense and self-respect. Now David's not around for > pig-wrestling you want someone else to join you in the mud? > > It's long been clear that you won't listen to any kind of coherent > explanations for /anything/ that disagrees with the preconceptions > drawn from your limited experience. There is no point in attempting > any dialogue with you, so I would suggest the most sensible approach > is to ignore you. > > I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group > view your unchallenged opinions as facts, but I think it's a risk > worth taking in the hope that we get an improvement in the light/heat > ratio here. It was Krystal 'The Flooder' Lynn who forged me and admitted to having done so. What were you betting on? Krystal 'The Flooder' Lynn shows that all of them are not automated because some of them tap into what Rhonda January Bass said in very specific ways that underscore they are a response, not just gibberish. IOW, while some could be automated others are definitely not. -- Curious how these posts are made? www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6PjCC.809768$rz2.484452@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #129489 |
On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 April 2018 20:05:26 UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>
>> David is on holiday so perhaps someone else can pitch in.
>
> Not if they have sense and self-respect. Now David's not around for
> pig-wrestling you want someone else to join you in the mud?
>
> It's long been clear that you won't listen to any kind of coherent
And it's long been clear that many will not tolerate any criticisms of
their languages, compilers and tools. Their bias could not be clearer
actually. Read the thread, and then read Keith's excellent summary
(posted about 12 hours ago). There was some disinformation going on and
it wasn't not coming from me.
> explanations for /anything/ that disagrees with the preconceptions
> drawn from your limited experience.
You mean, my limited experience of dealing with systems programming
tasks from the perspective of two widely different languages (mine, and
C), compared with the 'wider' perspective of only using the one?
(And the even more limited experience of implementing both languages
compared with the more typical one of implementing neither?)
OK...
> I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group
> view your unchallenged opinions as facts, but I think it's a risk
> worth taking in the hope that we get an improvement in the light/heat
> ratio here.
Let's say there are two kinds of people. Those for which this:
void(*)(void)
is a perfectly reasonable way of denoting a type which means 'pointer to
procedure', and for which no amount of debate will persuade them to
change their mind.
And those who think the opposite.
Whose opinions are more worth listening to?
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d81cd052-cbda-4e15-980f-da38d8a29f70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129496 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:04:42 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > Let's say there are two kinds of people. Those for which this: > > void(*)(void) > > is a perfectly reasonable way of denoting a type which means 'pointer to > procedure', and for which no amount of debate will persuade them to > change their mind. > > And those who think the opposite. > > Whose opinions are more worth listening to? > The function pointer syntax is pretty ropey. It's hard to know what Dennis Ritchie was thinking when he invented it, probably just trying to make the parser a bit easier to write. But whilst with hindsight it would have been better to use something else, having been done, there's not necessarily an unambiguous case for changing it, and either introducing two syntaxes or breaking backwards compatibility. In reality you just typedef most function pointers, containing the damage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eklCC.492636$oa6.150074@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #129497 |
On 20/04/2018 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:04:42 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> Let's say there are two kinds of people. Those for which this: >> >> void(*)(void) >> >> is a perfectly reasonable way of denoting a type which means 'pointer to >> procedure', and for which no amount of debate will persuade them to >> change their mind. >> >> And those who think the opposite. >> >> Whose opinions are more worth listening to? >> > The function pointer syntax is pretty ropey. It's hard to know what Dennis > Ritchie was thinking when he invented it, probably just trying to make > the parser a bit easier to write. No, it makes it harder. (Not impossible, but certainly doesn't make it easier than a left-to-right type syntax where any associated name is outside of the type denotation.) > But whilst with hindsight it would have been better to use something > else, having been done, there's not necessarily an unambiguous case > for changing it, and either introducing two syntaxes or breaking > backwards compatibility. > > In reality you just typedef most function pointers, containing the damage. If people /have/ to use then C then I can appreciate they have mitigate the problems by all sorts of workarounds, or just live with the syntax. I on the other hand, after decades of being able to simply write 'ref proc' for this example without giving it a thought, cannot adapt. And this is just one of dozens of such examples where I think C got it wrong. (I wonder how much more productive C programming could have been with a few more sensible tweaks of the language.) Anyway I'm obviously someone whose opinions not only don't count, but which people need protecting from! -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntvs13gax.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #129506 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Anyway I'm obviously someone whose opinions not only don't count, > but which people need protecting from! It's not your opinions. It's you. People dislike you because you're a newsgroup hooligan - a self-centered, self-absorbed bully with a poor ego. People with healthy egos understand that other people may reasonably disagree without it being an attack on them personally; they don't feel a need to perpetually tear down other people and their ideas just because they don't agree with them. You constantly confuse the difference between your opinion and a statement of fact, and when other people disagree you take it as a personal comment about you and escalate to making personal attacks in response. People don't like that. As long as you continue to be a newsgroup hooligan, people are going to react with disgust and revulsion. And rightly so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-23 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <CyqDC.2747$AX1.72@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #129637 |
On 23/04/2018 19:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> Anyway I'm obviously someone whose opinions not only don't count, >> but which people need protecting from! > > It's not your opinions. It's you. People dislike you because > you're a newsgroup hooligan - a self-centered, self-absorbed > bully with a poor ego. (Poor? Is that good or bad?) People with healthy egos understand that > other people may reasonably disagree without it being an attack > on them personally; they don't feel a need to perpetually tear > down other people and their ideas just because they don't agree > with them. You constantly confuse the difference between your > opinion and a statement of fact, and when other people disagree > you take it as a personal comment about you and escalate to > making personal attacks in response. What?! I very rarely make personal attacks on other posters, and then it would only be in response to some deep insult. I only argue against ideas. Unlike certain other people, notably you: TR in comp.std.c: > he [talking about me] > continues to act like someone who simply enjoys being an asshole, > Only to idiots like you. But then you don't seem bothered about insulting a whole class of people: Also from comp.std.c: > ... These languages attracted the > intellectual elite. The C language isn't like that - it attracts > the intellectually unsophisticated. And you go on to say: > ... we need to > look at not just the difficulty of the problem but the background > and sophistication of the people who are trying to solve it. So if you're going to talk about egos, you might want to take a look at yours. (BTW I think I might be the only one in thread who tried out the benchmark suite in the OP, posted results, and offered constructive criticism. Until someone decided to post some controversial and unsubstantiated results, and then retired from the thread with a bag of popcorn.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-26 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79fb9e39-7562-4500-90e5-d48f2da6af4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129639 |
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-7, Bart wrote: > On 23/04/2018 19:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > >> Anyway I'm obviously someone whose opinions not only don't count, > >> but which people need protecting from! > > > > It's not your opinions. It's you. People dislike you because > > you're a newsgroup hooligan - a self-centered, self-absorbed > > bully with a poor ego. > > (Poor? Is that good or bad?) > > People with healthy egos understand that > > other people may reasonably disagree without it being an attack > > on them personally; they don't feel a need to perpetually tear > > down other people and their ideas just because they don't agree > > with them. You constantly confuse the difference between your > > opinion and a statement of fact, and when other people disagree > > you take it as a personal comment about you and escalate to > > making personal attacks in response. > > What?! I very rarely make personal attacks on other posters, and then it > would only be in response to some deep insult. I only argue against > ideas. Unlike certain other people, notably you: > > TR in comp.std.c: > > > he [talking about me] > > continues to act like someone who simply enjoys being an asshole, > > > Only to idiots like you. > > But then you don't seem bothered about insulting a whole class of people: > > Also from comp.std.c: > > > ... These languages attracted the > > intellectual elite. The C language isn't like that - it attracts > > the intellectually unsophisticated. > > And you go on to say: > > > ... we need to > > look at not just the difficulty of the problem but the background > > and sophistication of the people who are trying to solve it. > > So if you're going to talk about egos, you might want to take a look at > yours. > > (BTW I think I might be the only one in thread who tried out the > benchmark suite in the OP, posted results, and offered constructive > criticism. Until someone decided to post some controversial and > unsubstantiated results, and then retired from the thread with a bag of > popcorn.) > > -- > bartc Do not get too confident, Marek Novotny, sometimes "your shills" are just that. Time to end this. Now that nobody is speaking to Marek Novotny, he's making it sound like he's broken Unity -- when in fact, people are just sick of his shit. I suspect Marek Novotny does not even know what is wrong with Trump. I am not irate, to the contrary, I am in stitches because Marek Novotny's nonsense is so clear. He purposefully didn't list all the benchmarks that he would inevitably mock... and we all know why, Marek Novotny is too stupid to see why. At least he has trolls in his corner. Marek Novotny is mere seconds away from being in Autumn Nissen of Prescott Valley's kill file. Really, what lie? - Get Rich Slow! https://youtu.be/0ZNxaaKD7-c Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk1t1kg3n.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129496 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> And it's long been clear that many will not tolerate any criticisms of
> their languages, compilers and tools. Their bias could not be clearer
> actually. Read the thread, and then read Keith's excellent summary
> (posted about 12 hours ago). There was some disinformation going on and
> it wasn't not coming from me.
I think you missed the point of my summary. You spent several articles
criticizing C++, all based on nothing more than idle speculation that
some code we haven't seen *might* have been written in C++. You also
expressed disbelief that Scott's code did what he said it did. You
could have simply asked him rather than implying that he's a liar.
[...]
> Let's say there are two kinds of people. Those for which this:
>
> void(*)(void)
>
> is a perfectly reasonable way of denoting a type which means 'pointer to
> procedure', and for which no amount of debate will persuade them to
> change their mind.
>
> And those who think the opposite.
>
> Whose opinions are more worth listening to?
Neither.
(void(*)(void) IS how C denotes the type of a pointer to a function
that takes no arguments and returns no result. It doesn't matter
whether I, you, or anybody else likes it. It's not going to change
in any language called "C".
I *do not particularly like* C's declaration syntax. Most people
don't. Most C programmers manage to get over that, and move on to
learning how to use the language.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 19:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jgqCC.459409$3o5.81750@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #129519 |
On 20/04/2018 17:17, Keith Thompson wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> And it's long been clear that many will not tolerate any criticisms of >> their languages, compilers and tools. Their bias could not be clearer >> actually. Read the thread, and then read Keith's excellent summary >> (posted about 12 hours ago). There was some disinformation going on and >> it wasn't not coming from me. > > I think you missed the point of my summary. You spent several articles > criticizing C++, all based on nothing more than idle speculation that > some code we haven't seen *might* have been written in C++. You also > expressed disbelief that Scott's code did what he said it did. You > could have simply asked him rather than implying that he's a liar. I said this: > Really? It has the same effect as switching to an interpreted > language? > > Then your programs must be highly atypical. And Scott replied: > I wouldn't say that at all. Say instead that the optimizer is pretty > good. Note also that disabling optimization with gcc will prevent > function in-lining, which I suspect makes a large part of the > difference in performance. Which sounds as if he's guessing as to the reason, but others seem to have jumped on that as /the/ reason. I think people should be able to question anything they find improbable, without being insulted as to their knowledge or experience, or expertise in writing optimising compilers. All suggesting that no one else found that claim the slightest bit out of the ordinary, and if /I/ did so, it was because I clearly didn't know enough about the subject. It was also put across, by people who know more about C++ than I do so who am I to disbelieve them, then this sort of speed-up was typical of multi-layered C++ programs using lots of small functions. So several lots of misinformation, but nobody's worried about newcomers being misled about that, only about them being corrupted by /my/ posts! >> Whose opinions are more worth listening to? > > Neither. > > (void(*)(void) IS how C denotes the type of a pointer to a function > that takes no arguments and returns no result. It doesn't matter > whether I, you, or anybody else likes it. It's not going to change > in any language called "C". > I *do not particularly like* C's declaration syntax. Most people > don't. Most C programmers manage to get over that, and move on to > learning how to use the language. It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax. The question is, whose opinion is worth reading, that of somebody pretending there's nothing wrong with it, or of something who says what they really think and what should be obvious to everybody? I can imagine a newcomer to C who might raise their eyebrows at a some odd feature, what they might want is someone to say, Yes you're right, it's pretty awful isn't it? But that's what you have to work with. And probably not someone who insists there's nothing wrong with it, they just don't know enough C or have enough experience to appreciate it or to understand it. After all, how can there be when C is one of the most successful and long-lived languages? (Which is not surprising when people just accept things as they are.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnd0ytk8ly.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #129522 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax.
That's your opinion. Mine is that it's not nearly as bad as you
say it is. There is an underlying consistent logic to it, the
"declaration follows use" idea that admittedly is not followed with
100% consistency.
> The question is, whose opinion is worth reading, that of somebody
> pretending there's nothing wrong with it, or of something who says
> what they really think and what should be obvious to everybody?
Most of us concentrate on explaining it and explaining how to use it.
We don't waste our time whining about it.
I routinely acknowledge that C's syntax is not ideal. Others have as
well.
> I can imagine a newcomer to C who might raise their eyebrows at a some
> odd feature, what they might want is someone to say, Yes you're right,
> it's pretty awful isn't it? But that's what you have to work with.
Or someone to say "Here's how it's defined, and here's how you use it",
which is what happens here all the time.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1b108e1-e0ce-4e82-b66e-aa41ac799521@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129524 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
> > It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax.
>
> That's your opinion. Mine is that it's not nearly as bad as you
> say it is. There is an underlying consistent logic to it, the
> "declaration follows use" idea that admittedly is not followed with
> 100% consistency.
In the absence of qualifiers or initializers, it's okay. Adding them
to the language creates a need to distinguish cases where multiple
items need the same qualifiers, from those where items need independent
qualifiers, e.g.
int *volatile: foo, bar;
int *: volatile foo, bar;
int: *volatile foo, *bar;
One could also then allow e.g.
struct foo {int x, y;};
struct foo *: p1 = &thingOfTypeFoo;
static struct foo const *const: *p2 = {4,3};
where the latter would create a static anonymous object of type "struct
foo", and then initialize p2 to point to that object. Constructs like
that would be something that couldn't be as nicely supported a more
Pascal-like syntax, but adding a separator between types and object
descriptions would make them possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 21:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8IrCC.682013$%a5.306572@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #129524 |
On 20/04/2018 19:58, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax.
>
> That's your opinion. Mine is that it's not nearly as bad as you
> say it is.
'void(*)(void)' versus (for example) 'pointer to proc'?
is not really bad? (And this is for the simplest possible kind of
function pointer. Try this one:
x=(*(int*(**)(void))x)();
I had to leave in the assignment, cast and function call because I had
no idea how to extract just the type. THAT is the problem. With the
non-C from which this came, that would be utterly trivial.)
But that's not my point, which is that the opinions of those who are
critical of the language can be useful and actually offer more insight
than of those who just accept everything without question.
--
bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 22:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d0ytshn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #129532 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 20/04/2018 19:58, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax. >> >> That's your opinion. Mine is that it's not nearly as bad as you >> say it is. > > 'void(*)(void)' versus (for example) 'pointer to proc'? Bait... > is not really bad? (And this is for the simplest possible kind of > function pointer. Try this one: > > x=(*(int*(**)(void))x)(); ...and switch. > I had to leave in the assignment, cast and function call because I had > no idea how to extract just the type. The type is int *(**)(void). It's the bit in the cast -- the ()s in front of x. Extracting the type is important because it can explain why this statement is suspicious. It's certainly not portable code. Please don't take my explanation as endorsing anything about C. I am simply explaining to people who might want to know that it's not usually hard to find the type in a cast. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 23:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7ytCC.641386$kF1.304928@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #129543 |
On 20/04/2018 22:16, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 20/04/2018 19:58, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> It's clearly a rubbish bit of syntax.
>>>
>>> That's your opinion. Mine is that it's not nearly as bad as you
>>> say it is.
>>
>> 'void(*)(void)' versus (for example) 'pointer to proc'?
>
> Bait...
>
>> is not really bad? (And this is for the simplest possible kind of
>> function pointer. Try this one:
>>
>> x=(*(int*(**)(void))x)();
>
> ...and switch.
No, they're both equally ludicrous ways of denoting function pointers.
(Imagine having to execute an algorithm counting and matching
parentheses to find if a function is involved.)
>> I had to leave in the assignment, cast and function call because I had
>> no idea how to extract just the type.
>
> The type is int *(**)(void). It's the bit in the cast -- the ()s in
> front of x. Extracting the type is important because it can explain why
> this statement is suspicious. It's certainly not portable code.
That's generated C which I edited from this:
pcptr = (*(int64 * (**) (void))pcptr)();
I just left out the '64' from int64 as I didn't want to unfairly
obfuscate the example further by using int64_t.
The 64-bit type should accommodate a pointer type for all platforms of
interest.
If it's still non-portable, non-recommended or UB, then I don't care any
more as I no longer generate C.
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <U6mCC.746810$a15.385697@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #129489 |
On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: > I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group > view your unchallenged opinions as facts, BTW what the you think new entrants would make of the claim that a simple optimisation option made a C (?) program up to 40 times faster? Worth saying something or just leave that unchallenged? If the former, then that is exactly what I did. My concern now is no longer with technical facts, but the marginalising of a contributor to the group, by basically ganging together in attempts to discredit him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 09:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e17398f-a178-4593-9a26-8b5a07de0c06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #129510 |
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 6:42:22 AM UTC-7, Bart wrote: > On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: > > > I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group > > view your unchallenged opinions as facts, > > BTW what the you think new entrants would make of the claim that a > simple optimisation option made a C (?) program up to 40 times faster? > > Worth saying something or just leave that unchallenged? If the former, > then that is exactly what I did. > > My concern now is no longer with technical facts, but the marginalising > of a contributor to the group, by basically ganging together in attempts > to discredit him. Why do you keep repeating yourself? Audra Moore must realize Jessica Lane knows he is just being a moron. Frankly I do not really think you understand. Nobody who isn't just using you for erotic ends (isn't a sock/shill) sees you as anything remotely close to decent. You have few but me to blame for that. So, yeah, I buy into my own make believe world, fully knowing Audra Moore has been fooled, because it makes me reconsider my program, improving it. And in retaliation you have nothing but a crack to start a circus. Audra Moore must understand that anyone can go get whatever software he has found, right, tweaker? Add to that, anyone can can get software to block his crap, which renders his trolling impotent, just like Audra Moore. A sustained, fervid, posting itch, while suffering from an empty mind - like slippery rodent prostitutes, and well-lubricated sheep, stuck in a mud hole for his own individual purposes. -- "You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention" Steven Petruzzellis, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 07:24 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fjut37FlnnqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #129510 |
On 04/21/2018 01:42 AM, bartc wrote: > On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: > >> I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group >> view your unchallenged opinions as facts, > > BTW what the you think new entrants would make of the claim that a > simple optimisation option made a C (?) program up to 40 times faster? You are distorting the facts. Nowhere did Scott use the term "a simple optimisation option", he said "compiler optimzations". If you spent less time misinterpreting what people say, others might be less inclined to call you out. -- Ian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-20 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OprCC.676834$8G7.60189@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #129526 |
On 20/04/2018 20:24, Ian Collins wrote: > On 04/21/2018 01:42 AM, bartc wrote: >> On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group >>> view your unchallenged opinions as facts, >> >> BTW what the you think new entrants would make of the claim that a >> simple optimisation option made a C (?) program up to 40 times faster? > > You are distorting the facts. Nowhere did Scott use the term "a simple > optimisation option", he said "compiler optimzations". If you spent > less time misinterpreting what people say, others might be less inclined > to call you out. And everyone is still at it. Please stop. Somebody makes some over-the-top, unsubstantiated claim (in order to help win some argument), and it's ME distorting the facts? I actually asked: "How much difference would it make if you left all that in place, but switched off compiler optimisations?" How many optimisations are there? Are you saying that when I switch from -O0 to -O3, the compiler doesn't give me everything it's got? It's withholding something that might give me a 3000% speed-up instead of 30%? It was perfectly obvious what I meant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-21 07:59 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <fjuv4iFlnnqU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #129529 |
On 04/21/2018 07:43 AM, bartc wrote: > On 20/04/2018 20:24, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 04/21/2018 01:42 AM, bartc wrote: >>> On 20/04/2018 09:23, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> I admit that that approach risks letting new entrants to the group >>>> view your unchallenged opinions as facts, >>> >>> BTW what the you think new entrants would make of the claim that a >>> simple optimisation option made a C (?) program up to 40 times faster? >> >> You are distorting the facts. Nowhere did Scott use the term "a simple >> optimisation option", he said "compiler optimzations". If you spent >> less time misinterpreting what people say, others might be less inclined >> to call you out. > > And everyone is still at it. > > Please stop. Sot pulling you up for distorting the facts? No chance. > Somebody makes some over-the-top, unsubstantiated claim (in order to > help win some argument), and it's ME distorting the facts? > > I actually asked: > > "How much difference would it make if you left all that in place, but > switched off compiler optimisations?" > > How many optimisations are there? Are you saying that when I switch from > -O0 to -O3, the compiler doesn't give me everything it's got? It's > withholding something that might give me a 3000% speed-up instead of 30%? > > It was perfectly obvious what I meant. No it wasn't. As I explained elsewhere, there are many non-trivial optimisations. Many are enabled by "umbrella" flags such as -Ox, while other are not. Getting a fully optimised build for a specific target process is not a simple task. -- ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web