Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #68800 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-01 01:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-07 05:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 281 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 01:22 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 02:29 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 11:10 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 12:40 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 12:06 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:28 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 13:07 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 14:15 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-01 09:12 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:53 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 14:02 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 13:43 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 16:39 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:17 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2015-09-01 10:36 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-01 12:46 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 12:49 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 05:15 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 05:18 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 13:32 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 13:45 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 13:57 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 16:35 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 06:00 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 14:50 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 16:40 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 18:24 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 18:28 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-02 15:22 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 09:05 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-02 17:55 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 10:20 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-03 08:37 -0400
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 15:22 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 07:52 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 10:29 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 19:45 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:23 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-01 11:25 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2015-09-01 11:34 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 20:26 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 19:02 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 20:51 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:04 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 23:11 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-01 21:13 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 13:34 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 13:46 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 14:43 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 15:13 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:24 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 15:56 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-02 11:03 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 16:19 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:01 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-02 09:40 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 00:43 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 08:58 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 08:49 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-02 11:37 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 11:48 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-02 15:59 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 16:09 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 16:00 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 08:12 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 17:21 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 12:54 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 15:25 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 17:14 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 17:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 12:12 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 04:42 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 14:55 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:35 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 18:19 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 18:25 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-07 14:25 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 05:35 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-07 13:49 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 15:00 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 07:24 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:39 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 16:28 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 08:34 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 16:58 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 09:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 17:18 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-07 18:05 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 21:31 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 13:19 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 08:56 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 18:25 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 18:16 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 17:30 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-07 12:44 -0400
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-07 12:17 -0400
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 10:31 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-11 10:26 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 12:05 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 04:17 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 12:51 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-07 12:42 -0400
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-09-07 21:07 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 02:14 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 02:21 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 03:03 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 11:43 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 08:36 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 15:58 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 14:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 17:11 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 23:55 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 01:22 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:01 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 10:29 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 08:15 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 10:41 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 09:53 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 11:46 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-11 12:59 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 10:24 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-11 13:22 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-11 12:48 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-11 13:27 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-09 18:37 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-02 01:04 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 06:39 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-02 09:27 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 23:22 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 23:13 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 16:46 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-01 14:19 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-01 17:20 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 06:51 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 09:28 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 01:36 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-03 10:46 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 13:46 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 05:53 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 15:13 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:23 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-04 13:15 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 12:38 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 05:14 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 05:30 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-04 14:46 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 15:04 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-05 15:32 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 15:02 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 07:20 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 16:57 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:50 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 15:58 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-05 11:24 -0400
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 07:07 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-05 15:38 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:48 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-05 07:48 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 12:51 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:01 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 02:34 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:49 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 18:55 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 03:56 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 19:26 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 20:58 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 21:55 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 07:19 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 22:30 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 07:35 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 22:48 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-05 07:52 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:45 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 17:58 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 20:52 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 16:10 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 04:09 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 15:03 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:02 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 05:27 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-04 15:45 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:03 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 16:03 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 08:35 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-04 15:55 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 17:25 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-04 16:53 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 11:59 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 18:12 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 12:35 -0500
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-04 17:59 +0000
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 11:31 -0700
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 20:27 +0100
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 12:39 -0700
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-04 22:13 +0200
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 13:30 -0700
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 20:33 +0000
Re: professional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 14:26 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 20:14 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 17:11 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 14:24 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 19:20 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 02:26 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 11:02 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 03:28 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-05 23:17 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-05 15:01 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 04:29 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 04:47 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:14 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 13:17 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:37 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:32 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 09:46 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 16:11 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 00:07 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 11:39 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 04:24 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 12:32 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 13:30 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-05 13:43 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:47 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 05:48 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:56 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 07:38 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 10:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:09 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 06:00 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 06:15 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 07:12 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-05 15:05 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 17:32 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-05 15:44 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 08:17 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-05 15:29 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 15:40 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-05 14:59 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-03 15:48 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-03 16:24 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 09:46 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-03 18:02 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-03 11:47 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:54 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 22:40 +0200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:50 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:54 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 20:04 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 18:41 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-03 12:01 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 20:21 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:28 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 12:55 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 20:55 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:05 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 21:33 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 13:41 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-03 22:22 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 14:34 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-03 23:52 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 17:30 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-04 12:41 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 06:19 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-04 16:38 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 08:51 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 09:50 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-09-03 13:50 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-03 16:29 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 01:44 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-04 08:50 +1200
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 07:14 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 15:48 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 09:16 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:19 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-03 22:58 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 17:13 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-09-04 01:58 +0000
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-04 11:22 +0100
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? gordonb.cr5il@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-09-04 21:26 -0500
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:59 -0700
Re: profesional bignum arithmetic in c, how done? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 05:20 -0700
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5706e0ca-09b3-40d2-82dc-9a6ff74585b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69158 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 5:24:12 PM UTC+1, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > > > The repository I think would be have to be in the same place, so there > > would still be the same tar.bz2 or tar.lz file, the same source tarball, > > but now with yet another hairy, temperamental script to try and coax > > into working! > > Well, I see it's hopeless. Everything consisting of more than > two files and, preferably, a project file for VS seems to be > too hairy for your liking. Looks a bit as if you are still > stuck in CP/M mode. Those were nice days, admittedly (and > we all were thirty years younger;-), but the world has mo- > ved on a bit since then. Consider the case closed for me. > Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C source file. Lots of algorithms are either tricky to write, because they're doing something a bit difficult in the mathematical / graph sense, or because they have to deal with pernickety external standards. But they're not more than a few thousand lines of code, they fit in a c source file that a user can reasonably work with in an editor. And usually the interfaces can be pretty clean. Then going over one file isn't a disaster. It just adds a layer of complexity. The ideal situation is a leaf function that declares no special types, and makes no calls (except maybe to itself, recursively). Next best is a leaf function that depends on the stand library. Next best is a leaf source file (the functions depend on statics and each other, but on nothing else), next best is a bundle of source files. However then it starts getting difficult, when library A depends on library B, or demands a configure script of some sort to set it up. All the world isn't a Unix box with apt-get and similar install tools.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <E2%Fx.324530$fK1.210972@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #69160 |
On 03/09/2015 17:46, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> > All the world isn't a Unix box with apt-get and similar install tools. Yeah it is. :-) Personally, I like it here on the fence. Yes, I agree that the way libraries are released nowadays is a pain. But yes, I realise why. But at least sometimes, I get the choice: libjpeg, which is no doubt very very thorough but which I find incomprehensible, or Malcolm's JPEG loader and saver, which comes in a couple of sources and a header - and I'm quite sure that the only reason it's in two sources rather than one is so that you can look at one of them and say "oh, that looks easy enough", and you can quietly ignore the scary one. Malcolm, do you happen to have done the same thing for PNG, by any chance? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1tefs5lf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #69160 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C
> source file.
For any component meant to be used by other code (i.e., a library),
you need at least a .h file and a .c file, yes?
For complex programs, splitting the source into multiple files
with some reasonable organization makes development a lot easier --
but you don't have to *distribute* the source (only) that way.
The SQLite project, for example, distributes an "amalgamated" source
file of about 160,000 lines, automatically constructed from numerous
C source files. Apparently this introduces some opportunities for
optimization (since the compiler sees the entire translation unit),
resulting in about a 5% performance improvement. I count 224 *.c
files in the full un-amalgamated source distribution.
I have no idea how practical it would be to do something similar
other C software packages (such as GMP).
https://www.sqlite.org/download.html
--
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 | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ded9ea2-820d-48a3-a84e-2d9b991d6454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69184 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> [...]
> > Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C
> > source file.
>
> For any component meant to be used by other code (i.e., a library),
> you need at least a .h file and a .c file, yes?
>
> For complex programs, splitting the source into multiple files
> with some reasonable organization makes development a lot easier --
> but you don't have to *distribute* the source (only) that way.
What about something like this? Would it work?
-----[ Begin mylib.hc ]-----
#ifndef _MYLIBC_HEADER
// Define some header stuff
#define _MYLIBC_HEADER
#else
// C source code goes here
#endif
-----[ End mylibc.hc ]-----
And then in some source file:
#include "mylib.hc"
#include "mylib.hc"
Header and source code in a single file.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msab55$mai$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69186 |
On 03/09/15 20:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>> Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C >>> source file. >> >> For any component meant to be used by other code (i.e., a library), >> you need at least a .h file and a .c file, yes? >> >> For complex programs, splitting the source into multiple files >> with some reasonable organization makes development a lot easier -- >> but you don't have to *distribute* the source (only) that way. > > What about something like this? Would it work? > > -----[ Begin mylib.hc ]----- > > #ifndef _MYLIBC_HEADER > // Define some header stuff > #define _MYLIBC_HEADER > > #else > // C source code goes here > #endif > > -----[ End mylibc.hc ]----- > > And then in some source file: > > #include "mylib.hc" > #include "mylib.hc" > > Header and source code in a single file. > Something like that /could/ work, but it would annoy many people. For a lot of people's coding standards, headers should always be as independent as possible - you can include them in any order, it doesn't matter if they are included multiple times, and if an include file needs other include files, it includes them itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41ab7db6-5813-4095-9d66-20f50fcc46b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69208 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/09/15 20:54, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> >> [...]
> >>> Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C
> >>> source file.
> >>
> >> For any component meant to be used by other code (i.e., a library),
> >> you need at least a .h file and a .c file, yes?
> >>
> >> For complex programs, splitting the source into multiple files
> >> with some reasonable organization makes development a lot easier --
> >> but you don't have to *distribute* the source (only) that way.
> >
> > What about something like this? Would it work?
> >
> > -----[ Begin mylib.hc ]-----
> >
> > #ifndef _MYLIBC_HEADER
> > // Define some header stuff
> > #define _MYLIBC_HEADER
> >
> > #else
> > // C source code goes here
> > #endif
> >
> > -----[ End mylibc.hc ]-----
> >
> > And then in some source file:
> >
> > #include "mylib.hc"
> > #include "mylib.hc"
> >
> > Header and source code in a single file.
> >
>
> Something like that /could/ work, but it would annoy many people. For a
> lot of people's coding standards, headers should always be as
> independent as possible - you can include them in any order, it doesn't
> matter if they are included multiple times, and if an include file needs
> other include files, it includes them itself.
How about this then?
-----[ Begin mylibc.hc ]-----
#ifndef _MYLIBC_HEADER
// Define some header stuff
#define _MYLIBC_HEADER
#include "mylibc.hc"
#else
// C source code goes here
#endif
-----[ End mylibc.hc ]-----
And then in some source file:
#include "mylibc.hc"
Header and source code in a single file, which includes itself in the
first block, but not the second block. Because of the #if..#endif, it
will only compile through the source file one time, just loading it
twice.
Seems doable.
And for Bart's solution, if he has multiple dependencies for a single
source file, such as gmp, he could implement this same type of chain
across multiple levels:
-----[ Start gmp.hc ]-----
#if !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE0)
// Code for stage-0 definitions go here
#define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE0
#include "gmp.h"
#elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE1)
// Code for stage-1 definitions go here
#define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE1
#include "gmp.h"
#elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE2)
// Code for stage-2 definitions go here
#define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE2
#include "gmp.h"
#elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_HEADER)
// Finally, normal gmp definitions go here
#define _GMP_VERSION_HEADER
#else
// Source code goes here, optionally protected against
// re-compilation by its own #define statement...
#endif
-----[ End gmp.hc ]-----
Then each user only has to include the single gmp.hc file, which
contains all headers, and all source code, through the multiple
stages required for everything to be defined appropriately.
Just a thought. Seems doable. Have never tried it.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87e40f4d-0164-4759-ad65-16e99b87a25a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69212 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:50:43 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > -----[ Start gmp.hc ]----- > #if !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE0) > // Code for stage-0 definitions go here > #define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE0 > #include "gmp.hc" > > #elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE1) > // Code for stage-1 definitions go here > #define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE1 > #include "gmp.hc" > > #elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_STAGE2) > // Code for stage-2 definitions go here > #define _GMP_VERSION_STAGE2 > #include "gmp.hc" > > #elif !defined(_GMP_VERSION_HEADER) > // Finally, normal gmp definitions go here > #define _GMP_VERSION_HEADER > #include "gmp.hc" > > #else > // Source code goes here, optionally protected against > // re-compilation by its own #define statement... > #endif > -----[ End gmp.hc ]----- Each of those should've been "gmp.hc" include files. And there was one missing. There may be more errors. It's why I need an edit-and- continue debugger. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msa5gb$vl0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69184 |
On 03/09/2015 19:47, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] >> Most components can bet written to a reasonable standard in one C >> source file. > > For any component meant to be used by other code (i.e., a library), > you need at least a .h file and a .c file, yes? > > For complex programs, splitting the source into multiple files > with some reasonable organization makes development a lot easier -- > but you don't have to *distribute* the source (only) that way. > > The SQLite project, for example, distributes an "amalgamated" source > file of about 160,000 lines, automatically constructed from numerous > C source files. Apparently this introduces some opportunities for > optimization (since the compiler sees the entire translation unit), > resulting in about a 5% performance improvement. I count 224 *.c > files in the full un-amalgamated source distribution. > > I have no idea how practical it would be to do something similar > other C software packages (such as GMP). > > https://www.sqlite.org/download.html > Brilliant! Exactly what I've been saying all along. Not necessarily to have a one-file solution (although that is what I strive for) but to keep it as simple and painless as possible. Some people don't seem to understand that just for the purpose of converting source code into binary, the source structure doesn't have to match what they have when developing. I managed to download that SQL source, compile it (as -O0), and create an executable that gives me this prompt: sqlite> all within a few minutes. (Except I haven't clue how to use sqlite.) Now where was I with that gmp configuration file that apparently is so trivial to run if only I wasn't so stupid... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 18:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msa0l6$alg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69158 |
On 03/09/2015 17:24, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 03/09/2015 11:46, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: >>> And there-in lies the reason why no binaries are distributed: >>> you'd always have to have 32 and 64 bit versions. > >> That wouldn't be a problem. Windows has always been excellent at >> providing backwards compatibility at the binary level. Just 32-bit and >> 64-bit DLLs would do; they will work with any Windows C compiler. The >> problem is a reliable source of those DLLs. As for the headers, they are >> simple enough to redistribute. > > As usual, you skip the more interestings parts about different > compilers (you yourself just complained that the binary you > found was for mingw and not compatible with your compiler of > choice) and different run-time library settings, .dll files ought to be language-neutral. The gmp.h file might be specific to mingw. Also the .dll file is being used as a library file for gcc which I haven't come across before, and might not work elsewhere. Minor details that I can get around if needed. I can't however get that bloody 'configure' file to run so that I can even GET the sources. And that, apparently, is MY fault! >> The repository I think would be have to be in the same place, so there >> would still be the same tar.bz2 or tar.lz file, the same source tarball, >> but now with yet another hairy, temperamental script to try and coax >> into working! > > Well, I see it's hopeless. Everything consisting of more than > two files and, preferably, a project file for VS seems to be > too hairy for your liking. Looks a bit as if you are still > stuck in CP/M mode. Sorry, but 30,000 lines of script code IS hairy and completely over the top. And in a language that doesn't work on anything but Unix too. I half-suspect this has been done deliberately to have a go at non-Unix programmers just so you can get to call them lazy and stupid. But a question for you: If you were installing this and it failed with this error: " configure: error: cannot compute suffix of executables: cannot compile and link" what would you do? (I decided to try this under Ubuntu to see if it's as easy as everyone makes out. I searched online for the library name and typed 'sudo apt-get install libgmp3-dev' I think it was. And that worked, in that now I could compile '#include <gmp.h>' when I couldn't before. However, it seemed *too* easy and finished too quickly; what happened to all that configure stuff? So I went to gmplib.org and clicked gmp-6.0.0a.tar.lz again. Surprise, Ubuntu hadn't a clue what that file was either! So I download and extract the .tar.bz2 version. Now I type ./configure. And I get lots of messages, and it gets much further than it did with Windows. But surprise number two, it fails with: "configure: error: No usable m4 in $PATH or /user/5bin" So we have a ridiculously complicated configure script that doesn't work in Windows, nor on Linux! (No doubt my fault again, but at least it can't be Windows being hostile this time!) Meanwhile people using Linux can bypass all that with what looks suspiciously like a streamlined download of a pre-configured gmp system! A bit of cheat if that is the case.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwpw7qqdn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #69174 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> .dll files ought to be language-neutral. The gmp.h file might be
> specific to mingw. Also the .dll file is being used as a library file
> for gcc which I haven't come across before, and might not work elsewhere.
>
> Minor details that I can get around if needed. I can't however get that
> bloody 'configure' file to run so that I can even GET the sources.
>
> And that, apparently, is MY fault!
I'm not saying it's your fault -- but it's certainly not mine, or, as
far as I can tell, anyone else's here in comp.lang.c.
[...]
> Sorry, but 30,000 lines of script code IS hairy and completely over the
> top. And in a language that doesn't work on anything but Unix too. I
> half-suspect this has been done deliberately to have a go at non-Unix
> programmers just so you can get to call them lazy and stupid.
The size of the configure script is irrelevant. It's automatically
generated and not intended to be modified, or even read, by humans
(though I've sometimes resorted to tweaking a configure script myself).
On the kind of system it's intended for, It Just Works, and the size is
irrelevant.
On other systems, It Just Doesn't Work, and any reasonable solution to
that problem will not depend on making the configure script more easily
maintainable by users.
GMP is a GNU/FSF project. The FSF *does not care* about supporting
Windows (though they don't stand in the way of third parties helping to
support GNU software on Windows). That's an inevitable consequence of
the organization's philosophy. I express no opinion on their policy.
And it has nothing to do with C, so I suggest that this is not the place
to discuss it further.
> But a question for you: If you were installing this and it failed with
> this error:
>
> " configure: error: cannot compute suffix of executables: cannot compile
> and link"
>
> what would you do?
>
> (I decided to try this under Ubuntu to see if it's as easy as everyone
> makes out.
>
> I searched online for the library name and typed 'sudo apt-get install
> libgmp3-dev' I think it was. And that worked, in that now I could
> compile '#include <gmp.h>' when I couldn't before.
>
> However, it seemed *too* easy and finished too quickly; what happened to
> all that configure stuff?
>
> So I went to gmplib.org and clicked gmp-6.0.0a.tar.lz again. Surprise,
> Ubuntu hadn't a clue what that file was either! So I download and
> extract the .tar.bz2 version.
Whatever file manager you're using apparently doesn't recognize the
".tar.lz" suffix. If you had typed
tar xf gmp-6.0.0a.tar.lz
at a command line, it would have unpacked it into a gmp-6.0.0a
directory.
> Now I type ./configure. And I get lots of messages, and it gets much
> further than it did with Windows. But surprise number two, it fails with:
>
> "configure: error: No usable m4 in $PATH or /user/5bin"
Apparently you need the m4 command to build gmp from source.
apt-get install m4
will install it for you.
> So we have a ridiculously complicated configure script that doesn't work
> in Windows, nor on Linux! (No doubt my fault again, but at least it
> can't be Windows being hostile this time!)
>
> Meanwhile people using Linux can bypass all that with what looks
> suspiciously like a streamlined download of a pre-configured gmp system!
> A bit of cheat if that is the case.)
It's not a cheat at all. There are binary packages for various
Linux-based distributions. The maintainers of those distributions (Red
Hat, Ubuntu, etc.) create those packages from source and make them
available via each distribution's package management system. When you
type
sudo apt-get install libgmp3-dev
you're taking advantage of the work someone did to build a Debian
package from the libgmp sources.
It seems to me that it would be a large but not intractable job to set
up something similar for Windows, creating Windows-specific binary
installation packages for the same software packages that are commonly
available on Linux systems, along with something that runs on your
Windows box and keeps track of what you've installed and knows where to
find new packages and update existing ones. I certainly don't have the
time or ability to create something like that (I haven't even used
Windows in quite a while). Cygwin is almost like that, but it requires
a Unix-like layer on top of Windows. MSYS might be closer; I'm not as
familiar with it.
--
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 | 2015-09-03 20:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msa6h7$44m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69187 |
On 03/09/2015 20:01, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> And that, apparently, is MY fault! > > I'm not saying it's your fault -- but it's certainly not mine, or, as > far as I can tell, anyone else's here in comp.lang.c. But certain people on comp.lang.c /are/ saying that failure to run this file is due to my shortcomings. And are not admitting that the installation method is complex and error prone. >> Meanwhile people using Linux can bypass all that with what looks >> suspiciously like a streamlined download of a pre-configured gmp system! >> A bit of cheat if that is the case.) > > It's not a cheat at all. There are binary packages for various > Linux-based distributions. The maintainers of those distributions (Red > Hat, Ubuntu, etc.) create those packages from source and make them > available via each distribution's package management system. When you > type But why bother with binary packages when installing from the 'source' is apparently child's play, as I've constantly been told? And that was on Windows; on Linux it should be even simpler because everything necessary should work automatically. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e08183cf-e810-4f5a-b8c9-a38b51d7d521@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69190 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> But why bother with binary packages when installing from the 'source' is
> apparently child's play, as I've constantly been told? And that was on
> Windows; on Linux it should be even simpler because everything necessary
> should work automatically.
Bart, why don't you create that utility? It's a brilliant idea. You
could take the source code requirements found in a given package on an
OS like Linux, and create an aggregator tool which brings them all
together into a single source file for compilation of a given version
which allows the thing you're after to be downloaded as a unit, then
compiled as sqlite.c was.
If you create that aggregator tool, you'd be the envy of millions.
Literally. You'd simplify so many people's lives and, in many regards,
remove the need for having barriers between Linux and Windows because
most everything could then be directly compiled from sources using
MinGW alone (I say most everything because there are still differences
between OSes on Linux/POSIX features and Windows, but an interface
like the reverse of what my lin2win is designed to do -- you'd need to
write a win2lin version):
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/utils/common/cpp/linux
http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Lin2win
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0678ff21-a224-4675-8f7a-487605d3aedb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69191 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:28:56 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> > But why bother with binary packages when installing from the 'source' is
> > apparently child's play, as I've constantly been told? And that was on
> > Windows; on Linux it should be even simpler because everything necessary
> > should work automatically.
>
> Bart, why don't you create that utility? It's a brilliant idea. You
> could take the source code requirements found in a given package on an
> OS like Linux, and create an aggregator tool which brings them all
> together into a single source file for compilation of a given version
> which allows the thing you're after to be downloaded as a unit, then
> compiled as sqlite.c was.
>
> If you create that aggregator tool, you'd be the envy of millions.
> Literally. You'd simplify so many people's lives and, in many regards,
> remove the need for having barriers between Linux and Windows because
> most everything could then be directly compiled from sources using
> MinGW alone (I say most everything because there are still differences
> between OSes on Linux/POSIX features and Windows, but an interface
> like the reverse of what my lin2win is designed to do -- you'd need to
> write a win2lin version):
>
> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/utils/common/cpp/linux
> http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/Lin2win
Suppose the thing you wanted was gmp, and gmp required three other
hypothetical libraries called lib1, lib2, and lib3, but those weren't
included in the gmp source code. Your aggregator tool would identify
that those libs are required (from it's knowledge of publicly available
source code bases, and the file and function names used therein), and
you would create a source file tree like this:
.\gmp_version.c // The file you'd compile or include in your app
// Prerequisites to making this version of gmp compile
.\req\lib1.h
.\req\lib1.c
.\req\lib2.h
.\req\lib2.c
.\req\lib3.h
.\req\lib3.c
.\req\gmp.h
.\req\gmp.c
Internally, the gmp_version.c file would be very simple:
-----[ Start gmp_version.c ]-----
#include "req\lib1.h"
#include "req\lib2.h"
#include "req\lib3.h"
#include "req\gmp.h"
#include "req\lib1.c"
#include "req\lib2.c"
#include "req\lib3.c"
#include "req\gmp.c"
-----[ End gmp_version.c ]-----
...so that everything's defined and your remote application needs to
only include the one gmp_version.c file, or to compile it separately
and link it. It also identifies explicitly exactly what dependencies
the library has. You could also break it out such that if lib3.h has
a dependency on lib1.h, to include it twice for each header file (as
above) so that each could be a total stand-alone compile if need be,
with each compiling in its own requirements.
It would be doable. Single files for each module containing
everything necessary to compile them as stand-alone libs on any
platform using only the double-header file format like the previous
post, or the two-file format like above.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msa8h1$d24$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69191 |
On 03/09/2015 20:28, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> But why bother with binary packages when installing from the 'source' is >> apparently child's play, as I've constantly been told? And that was on >> Windows; on Linux it should be even simpler because everything necessary >> should work automatically. > > Bart, why don't you create that utility? It's a brilliant idea. You > could take the source code requirements found in a given package on an > OS like Linux, and create an aggregator tool which brings them all > together into a single source file for compilation of a given version > which allows the thing you're after to be downloaded as a unit, then > compiled as sqlite.c was. One small problem: for packages such gmp, the full C source doesn't appear to exist. It seems to be created on-demand using (afaik) that giant bash script; at least that's the first step. So you can't even get to first base. For 'aggregating', I already have a semi-automatic method I use for my own projects, but this is helped along by a special option I have in my compiler when generating C. I think this is something that for the time being should be up to the common sense of the developers. At the moment, simply providing any C source would be a good start! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aa5ec8db-708e-4920-90e0-9939654f96a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69194 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:56:10 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 20:28, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:22:05 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> >> But why bother with binary packages when installing from the 'source' is
> >> apparently child's play, as I've constantly been told? And that was on
> >> Windows; on Linux it should be even simpler because everything necessary
> >> should work automatically.
> >
> > Bart, why don't you create that utility? It's a brilliant idea. You
> > could take the source code requirements found in a given package on an
> > OS like Linux, and create an aggregator tool which brings them all
> > together into a single source file for compilation of a given version
> > which allows the thing you're after to be downloaded as a unit, then
> > compiled as sqlite.c was.
>
> One small problem: for packages such gmp, the full C source doesn't
> appear to exist. It seems to be created on-demand using (afaik) that
> giant bash script; at least that's the first step. So you can't even get
> to first base.
>
> For 'aggregating', I already have a semi-automatic method I use for my
> own projects, but this is helped along by a special option I have in my
> compiler when generating C.
>
> I think this is something that for the time being should be up to the
> common sense of the developers. At the moment, simply providing any C
> source would be a good start!
Your aggregator tool would have to work on Linux, and it would have
to be aware of how to run ./configure and the like in steps, including
the "apt-get install lib-source-name" files, so that you could obtain
their source, or to do the appropriate...:
wget http://www.path.to/lib-source.tar.gz
...commands to retrieve the current version in source code form, etc.
You could write a scanner to search the #include directories and even
include those files if you wanted, and that would point a user on
another OS to the exact cause of the program, as the #include
statements would all be replaced with direct source code. You could
also provide a mapping tool which identifies in a parsable form the
line numbers for each source file, so a user could go into an editor
and make manual fixups to a particular file, or swap out that file
with a newer version that has bug fixes, etc., without having to
go in and do it manually, but only through the GUI, which knows
where the source code came from, and so on...
It would be really really nice.
If you did this, it would take some effort to get it setup. But once
you got the bulk of the framework established, others would jump in
to help you for additional libraries.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 21:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msaana$mba$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69198 |
On 03/09/2015 21:05, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:56:10 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> I think this is something that for the time being should be up to the >> common sense of the developers. At the moment, simply providing any C >> source would be a good start! > > Your aggregator tool would have to work on Linux, and it would have > to be aware of how to run ./configure and the like in steps, including > the "apt-get install lib-source-name" In that case, forget it. I can't even get that far doing it manually! The point of such a tool would be to avoid having to run ./configure. While people already on Linux don't need it. The elephant in the room is that bloody great bash script, and everyone is talking about everything except getting rid of the thing! What's happened is that people have been using auto-configuration tool on top of configuration tool on top of configuration tool, with this resulting monstrosity. But provided it just about crawls to completion without failing, enough to create the slick binary downloads for Linux who can then forget, then it's considered acceptable and foisted onto onto Windows users. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71b86ae4-390a-48f5-84b4-ed78195470d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69207 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > On 03/09/2015 21:05, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 3:56:10 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > > >> I think this is something that for the time being should be up to the > >> common sense of the developers. At the moment, simply providing any C > >> source would be a good start! > > > > Your aggregator tool would have to work on Linux, and it would have > > to be aware of how to run ./configure and the like in steps, including > > the "apt-get install lib-source-name" > > In that case, forget it. I can't even get that far doing it manually! > > The point of such a tool would be to avoid having to run ./configure. > While people already on Linux don't need it. > > The elephant in the room is that bloody great bash script, and everyone > is talking about everything except getting rid of the thing! I am talking about getting rid of it ... for everybody else. The up- front people who use those tools for their products will still require that at least one recipient then use it also. However, that really is a trivial feature on Linux once you learn a few basics. If you go with raw source code files, it would be even easier once you find all the dependencies, which could be derived by just running the configure scripts repeatedly until they stop failing, obtaining each source code they specify and inserting it as you go. > What's happened is that people have been using auto-configuration tool > on top of configuration tool on top of configuration tool, with this > resulting monstrosity. But provided it just about crawls to completion > without failing, enough to create the slick binary downloads for Linux > who can then forget, then it's considered acceptable and foisted onto > onto Windows users. I agree with you. That's why this aggregator tool is so needed. On Linux, the apps can usually be downloaded in binary form, which makes it easy. Or compiles from sources, which requires more effort sometimes, but also is fairly easy ... on Linux. But trying to get that Linux software framework operational on Windows requires CYGWIN or MinGW/MSYS. It works most of the time, and I've never seen CYGWIN fail FWIW, but it is much more complex to do the same thing on Windows you could much more easily do on Linux. You could be their way out, Bart. Writing this tool would change the playing filed. No more complex usages for people. You would simplify countless people's lives, allowing for so many more ports of these tools for a given source code version, and people would have a tool to use, rather than a kit to build, allowing them to create so much more rapidly, and so much more complexly, than they can do today. It would be the greatest advance to the open source community in the last 50 years (which pretty much comprises all of it). :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r3mffbbb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69209 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: <snip> >> What's happened is that people have been using auto-configuration tool >> on top of configuration tool on top of configuration tool, with this >> resulting monstrosity. But provided it just about crawls to completion >> without failing, enough to create the slick binary downloads for Linux >> who can then forget, then it's considered acceptable and foisted onto >> onto Windows users. > > I agree with you. That's why this aggregator tool is so needed. That seems like putting the effort into the wrong place. A programmer only wants a few header files and the library to link against. All the eventual users want the binary library. Whilst a programmer will happily compile a mangled C file, the users won't download C source, no matter how well packaged into one file it is. As a result you force programmers to distribute all the required binary libraries with every application which is likely to create a security update nightmare. The effort involved in pushing something like GMP though a Windows compiler only needs to be done, in effect, once. Whatever needs to be done will need only minor tweaks for new releases, and the maintainer will soon be an expert in the process of building a new version. If your tool were simple to write this would all be moot because it would provide a way to automate such a package library, but I would be prepared to bet that a tool such as you describe will never be written. I can see problems I can't yet see a solution to for even the simplest packages -- it feels like a programmer's tar pit. What's more it's limited to C. A package install system would be largely language agnostic. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <135436da-b575-4e41-925a-59bf6e98ee09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69220 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 5:22:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: > <snip> > >> What's happened is that people have been using auto-configuration tool > >> on top of configuration tool on top of configuration tool, with this > >> resulting monstrosity. But provided it just about crawls to completion > >> without failing, enough to create the slick binary downloads for Linux > >> who can then forget, then it's considered acceptable and foisted onto > >> onto Windows users. > > > > I agree with you. That's why this aggregator tool is so needed. > > That seems like putting the effort into the wrong place. A programmer > only wants a few header files and the library to link against. All the > eventual users want the binary library. Whilst a programmer will > happily compile a mangled C file, the users won't download C source, no > matter how well packaged into one file it is. As a result you force > programmers to distribute all the required binary libraries with every > application which is likely to create a security update nightmare. You include the source file in the program you distribute, Ben, compiled into it. No libraries. And if there's an issue with security, get the updated version which fixes it. > The effort involved in pushing something like GMP though a Windows > compiler only needs to be done, in effect, once. Whatever needs to be > done will need only minor tweaks for new releases, and the maintainer > will soon be an expert in the process of building a new version. New version releases. Bug fixes. Daily builds. For the developer relying upon a tool for something simple, they can use a largely stale version. But for someone who is moving their product along with the parallel one, they'll want more frequent updates. But, my thinking here is for the masses. I want to use some ability that's been developed. The tool is great, but I don't want to learn how to do 35 things to get to the point where I have a version I can use. I'd like to download gmp_2.3.1.hc and have full access to the entire tool. It's the way it should be. > If your tool were simple to write this would all be moot because it > would provide a way to automate such a package library, but I would be > prepared to bet that a tool such as you describe will never be written. It's not something that people in Linux would want because they are constantly introducing bug fixes to libraries at disparate rates. The gmp library moves forward on its own schedule. So does libc. So does xyz. So does abc. And as each one goes forward, the whole thing moves. For non-Linux users, for the necessity of maintaining a particular snapshot version of a release ... such a tool would be desirable. But, so long as people exist who will never look beyond anything they didn't already master back in the 1900s with TTY and VT100, I agree it's unlikely such a tool will ever come from one of them. But at some point this younger generation is going to throw off that legacy baggage in favor of swapping it out with the place the technology has taken them ... into the lands of "more capable than before" and "it doesn't have to be that way any longer." > I can see problems I can't yet see a solution to for even the simplest > packages -- it feels like a programmer's tar pit. What's more it's > limited to C. A package install system would be largely language > agnostic. It wouldn't be limited to C. C++ versions could be written immediately. And if there are tools which are already written in some other language, they could be used through the standard well-defined DLL API using the header files they've released for C, just like today, because those files aren't an issue. It's the multi-source file requirements of so many interbred GNU products that are the issue. Because of those myriad of inter-dependencies, it does make it difficult to install outside of a Linux-like operating system. Have those files in a single sqlite.c like file would be desirable in all cases, even in Linux, for one-off compilations and inclusions in products ... especially considering that snapshot versions could be maintained once future changes to libraries break older versions, which in my experience happens about every 6-18 months in Linux. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 23:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fv2vf74d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69223 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 5:22:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:33:35 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >> <snip> >> >> What's happened is that people have been using auto-configuration tool >> >> on top of configuration tool on top of configuration tool, with this >> >> resulting monstrosity. But provided it just about crawls to completion >> >> without failing, enough to create the slick binary downloads for Linux >> >> who can then forget, then it's considered acceptable and foisted onto >> >> onto Windows users. >> > >> > I agree with you. That's why this aggregator tool is so needed. >> >> That seems like putting the effort into the wrong place. A programmer >> only wants a few header files and the library to link against. All the >> eventual users want the binary library. Whilst a programmer will >> happily compile a mangled C file, the users won't download C source, no >> matter how well packaged into one file it is. As a result you force >> programmers to distribute all the required binary libraries with every >> application which is likely to create a security update nightmare. > > You include the source file in the program you distribute, Ben, compiled > into it. No libraries. And if there's an issue with security, get the > updated version which fixes it. So this is only for programmers writing applications for users who have a C compiler installed? I have to ask because "source compiled into it" is a mysterious phrase for me. But I think you've missed what I mean by the security update problem. If your application comes with various libraries and you are either lazy or slow or dead, how will I get security updates for this embedded code? <snip> >> If your tool were simple to write this would all be moot because it >> would provide a way to automate such a package library, but I would be >> prepared to bet that a tool such as you describe will never be written. > > It's not something that people in Linux would want because they are > constantly introducing bug fixes to libraries at disparate rates. Yes, I get updates for security issues within days or even hours of the problem being identified. Don't you like that feature? <snip> > But, so long as people exist who will never look beyond anything they > didn't already master back in the 1900s with TTY and VT100, I agree > it's unlikely such a tool will ever come from one of them. Who are these people? You must surely be being snide and be suggesting that I am some sort of dinosaur. I'm not. I am surprised that Windows does not have this ability, but never existed when I was dealing with VT100s. In those days, Unix was like Windows. You bought it and waited and/or hoped there's be an update one day. Frequent updates from massive online repositories of libraries and programs is a relatively recent notion and it's one the many things that's better now. I though other systems would have such features, even if not quite to deeply embedded because the system itself will never use it. > But at > some point this younger generation is going to throw off that legacy > baggage in favor of swapping it out with the place the technology > has taken them ... into the lands of "more capable than before" and > "it doesn't have to be that way any longer." > >> I can see problems I can't yet see a solution to for even the simplest >> packages -- it feels like a programmer's tar pit. What's more it's >> limited to C. A package install system would be largely language >> agnostic. > > It wouldn't be limited to C. C++ versions could be written > immediately. Really? I don't think C++ and C source files have the same issues as far as this tool of yours is concerned so I don't see how it could be immediate. Anyway, it's one language at a time you agree. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web