Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!wilderland.ovh!ereborbbs.duckdns.org!eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: MISRA C
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 10:52:56 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <86qzier37r.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <11822bi$39m36$1@dont-email.me> <118ms4o$2j5vk$2@dont-email.me> <118mvcf$2j0p3$4@dont-email.me> <118pkkd$3gajb$1@dont-email.me> <118q3np$3e19p$2@dont-email.me> <118q63q$3l59m$1@dont-email.me> <118qftr$3nc7i$1@dont-email.me> <119473t$33192$1@dont-email.me> <119493r$33m1o$1@dont-email.me> <1194c7i$34ldb$2@dont-email.me> <1194mqo$37fnf$3@dont-email.me> <1195gqh$23uj$1@news.muc.de> <1195qr8$2aem2$1@dont-email.me> <1195u2r$16ah$1@news.muc.de> <119612d$2aem2$2@dont-email.me> <11962u0$16ah$2@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 17:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1683303"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+g7LhW7ZDx0KK8fCrnpvQO3xQcNG/aI/A="; posting-host="2656c84029572b3033be2dff7a8e2cf2"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sWdSP/W+kV0REgWl73zTnrdPmpA= sha1:kOtV6Db00vdq6Oafqafw3MkiaE8= sha256:yG+DknO05WRwS98WFve/hrczcGa9IgU81XnAX1x15RQ= sha1:zPBj6T0ZbB1IFM3chcsIzymlF7g= sha256:BII0sLrTuvWg3qJbhk0KkCXIXal/r93J1VvJwA25Jp8=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:402431

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> Yes, it was the Ackermann function I had in mind (though I'd
> forgotten its name).  It's a function of two natural number
> arguments.  Simply making both arguments the same gives a
> function of one argument.
>
> If memory serves me correctly (which it probably doesn't),
> A(0, 0) = 0.
> A(1, 1) = 1.
> A(2, 2) = 5.
> A(3, 3) = 63.
> A(4, 4) = 2^2^2^2^2^2^2 + 3
> A(5, 5) is much bigger still.
>
> This function can't be calculated iteratively, [...]

Of course the Ackermann function can be calculated iteratively,
as it can be computed by a Turing Machine, and Turing Machines
don't have recursion.