Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #168677
| Path | csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) |
| Date | Tue, 27 Dec 2022 19:38:24 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 52 |
| Message-ID | <86wn6curin.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10655@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1857@hubcap.UUCP> <8807121629.AA07169@explorer.dgp.toronto.edu> <2807@ttrdc.UUCP> <853b5253-ab29-4e38-9e81-a1d9312e5e2dn@googlegroups.com> <tn3gtv$1bht$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tn5emd$1uap$1@gioia.aioe.org> <86y1quwbc0.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87lemumdsj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <865ydyvwyq.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87y1qslrqw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Info | reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="38ac7d2bf94e0515b2526fa483f331a9"; logging-data="4075844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nlGYJmG3lLBktxYs99bYrq1el3fHNkaM=" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:okumJqv3T5FI0MfSc5slugyT2Lk= sha1:25Npzr60DeA1R6YdjAN8/enVo2s= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:168677 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: [..pruning mercilessly..] > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: [.. concerning C being Turing complete ..] > I think this is going to get messy because I contend that C > (certainly freestanding C) already excludes an infinite number of > computable functions because it's model is everywhere bounded. > (Yes, I know we might want to consider IO to be essentially > unbounded.) > > But that's a side issue! Okay, I will ignore that question. > I meant only that the kind of processing the example indulged in > could be deemed invalid without affecting C's Turing completeness. > You considered the program "large" in that it generated a huge > post-processing input. C could have declared such "large" programs > to be invalid. What I think you're saying here is C could disallow large programs when the largeness comes mostly from macro expansion (and so we don't need to consider the question of the language being Turing complete). I think that's right, although I'm not sure if such a determination could be done cheaply enough; the cost of deciding when the limit is exceeded might be too high to be practical. Also I'm not sure how to define the property in a precise way; no doubt it could be done, but I suspect making the definition precise would give a result that is complicated and hard to understand. (But I'm not asking for a concrete proposal.) If you're saying something else then I don't know what it is. >> Incidentally, the processing time needed is irrelevant. The >> compiler will run out of memory long before it runs out of CPU >> cycles. > > Yes. "Compile-time costs" was supposed to mean costs (in terms > of resources) incurred at compile time. Oh, but this matters. The amount of memory required to see if the macro-processing-expansion limit is exceeded (even when it is not) might be too large for a determination to be made. Oops! Have we made any progress towards understanding each other? I hope we have. :)
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) KP2 KP2 <jungletrain@outlook.com> - 2022-12-10 13:06 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 20:57 -0600
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 22:57 -0600
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2022-12-11 20:31 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-12 14:39 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2022-12-13 12:15 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 16:23 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-26 05:20 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-26 14:37 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-26 10:30 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-27 19:38 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-29 02:09 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-29 19:56 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2022-12-11 20:12 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 14:33 -0600
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 21:12 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:09 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-12-12 20:30 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 15:20 -0600
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2022-12-12 21:28 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 22:39 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2022-12-12 22:49 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> - 2022-12-31 04:01 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 15:56 -0800
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 14:55 +0000
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 16:26 +0100
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:50 +0100
Re: Limitation of MS-DOS C compiler? (was Re: Should I convert FORTRAN code to C?) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2022-12-13 18:56 +0300
csiph-web