Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #3254 > unrolled thread
| Started by | boltar2003@boltar.world |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-05 09:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-05-11 03:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 241 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 09:37 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? China Blue Veins <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-05 02:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-05 09:58 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? China Blue Veins <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-05 04:47 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-07 23:22 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-05 11:58 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-06 03:27 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-06 00:03 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 09:18 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-06 02:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-05 12:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2011-05-05 15:40 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-05 21:17 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Datesfat Chicks <datesfat.chicks@gmail.com> - 2011-05-05 18:45 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:44 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 09:58 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-06 11:11 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 10:16 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-06 11:28 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:34 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-06 15:09 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 13:03 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 09:01 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 14:32 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-07 16:27 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 16:43 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-08 06:19 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-08 17:18 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-08 09:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-09 11:34 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 03:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-11 10:51 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-11 08:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-12 15:05 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-07 16:23 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 18:12 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 10:30 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:01 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 12:37 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-07 18:15 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-08 15:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-08 10:46 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 21:49 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 09:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 20:24 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 15:04 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 15:15 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-07 20:26 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 21:06 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-07 23:27 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-05 20:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-06 02:53 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 19:27 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-18 19:54 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-06 10:07 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 02:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 07:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 08:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Marco Parrone <marco@marcoparrone.com> - 2011-05-06 17:32 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 21:46 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 00:28 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-07 09:01 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 06:35 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 01:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-08 09:37 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-08 03:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-08 10:44 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 07:23 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-09 11:30 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-09 13:36 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-09 07:08 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 07:38 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 07:44 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-09 21:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 13:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 14:19 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 15:05 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 10:20 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 19:04 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-14 11:13 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-09 15:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-09 23:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 11:06 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-10 00:11 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 11:17 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-10 07:10 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 12:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:48 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:54 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-05-12 05:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 00:44 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 19:36 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 23:21 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 07:08 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-11 11:48 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 10:03 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 10:12 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-11 21:23 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-12 09:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:00 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:35 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-12 06:51 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-12 22:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-11 11:47 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 08:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-10 21:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-11 02:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-11 09:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:42 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-15 00:23 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-05-14 22:30 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-16 04:19 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-16 08:40 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-05-16 17:53 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-16 21:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 10:20 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-17 15:00 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-05-17 20:28 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 14:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-17 16:23 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-17 23:06 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-18 01:02 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-18 01:29 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-18 04:03 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-05-17 16:47 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-17 17:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 21:57 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-23 21:57 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-23 17:45 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-24 11:43 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-24 10:58 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Sherm Pendley <sherm.pendley@gmail.com> - 2011-05-11 11:11 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-09 16:22 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 21:25 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-10 17:28 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 12:20 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 03:53 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-10 20:18 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 04:42 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-10 09:12 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-10 03:21 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-10 10:53 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-10 08:12 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-05-10 09:39 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 12:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 08:12 +1200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 15:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-10 19:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-11 07:41 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-11 19:51 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-11 12:45 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-10 11:04 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-08 09:27 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 08:04 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-08 22:50 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 00:18 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:49 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-08 20:05 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-08 13:44 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 00:22 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 17:05 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 14:07 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 22:49 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-16 11:10 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> - 2011-05-16 08:04 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2011-05-07 19:11 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2011-05-08 10:16 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-09 09:03 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-06 08:59 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 03:01 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-06 07:13 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-06 09:02 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-06 15:41 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 02:53 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? boltar2003@boltar.world - 2011-05-07 16:17 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 10:08 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:20 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 14:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-07 14:31 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 22:49 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-07 17:22 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 10:24 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-07 17:32 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 10:57 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-08 08:09 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:41 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-07 21:35 -0500
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-08 23:31 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 00:26 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-09 08:39 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-09 09:03 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-09 10:06 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-09 17:52 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-05-10 11:20 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-08 17:59 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-09 09:01 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-07 20:41 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 12:48 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 11:01 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-05-08 13:10 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 19:51 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-08 22:21 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-06-04 12:54 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-04 12:59 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 06:30 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-10 21:56 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-07 13:53 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 15:16 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-07 23:42 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-07 19:37 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 07:17 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 09:24 +0200
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Måns Rullgård <mans@mansr.com> - 2011-05-08 10:36 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 13:29 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-08 00:28 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-05-07 23:06 -0700
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-05-08 07:30 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-08 15:51 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-14 13:33 +0300
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-05-14 11:08 -0400
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-10 22:14 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-05-08 11:08 +0000
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-08 08:15 +0100
Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C on Unix/Linux? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-11 03:43 -0700
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 07:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87sjslhiqa.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3712 |
pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: > Michael Press wrote: > >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. > > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the comparison function. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 11:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dca7773$0$81481$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #3722 |
Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: >pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: >> Michael Press wrote: >> >>> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >>> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >>> >>> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. >> >> I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. >> >> http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ >There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like >functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the >comparison function. I've never needed that argument; what use do you have for that argument? Casper --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 10:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iqe508$s49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3742 |
On 05/11/2011 07:48 AM, Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes:
...
>> There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like
>> functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the
>> comparison function.
>
> I've never needed that argument; what use do you have for that argument?
The simplest example I can come up with is:
int compare_element_n(void*first, void*second, void*args)
{
size_t n = *(size_t*)args;
int *left = first;
int *right = second;
return left[n] < right[n] ? -1 : right[n] < left[n] ? 1 : 0;
}
Example of use:
int array[1024][3]; /* Array of 3-d positions. */
int n;
/* Sort by x coordinate: */
n = 0;
new_qsort(array, 1024, sizeof array[0], compare_element_n, &n);
/* Sort by z coordinate: */
n = 2;
new_qsort(array, 1024, sizeof array[0], compare_element_n, &n);
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 10:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iqe5gm$s49$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3754 |
On 05/11/2011 10:03 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
...
> int compare_element_n(void*first, void*second, void*args)
> {
> size_t n = *(size_t*)args;
> int *left = first;
> int *right = second;
> return left[n] < right[n] ? -1 : right[n] < left[n] ? 1 : 0;
> }
>
> Example of use:
> int array[1024][3]; /* Array of 3-d positions. */
> int n;
That should, of course, have been "size_t n;". I changed types partway
through writing this message, and didn't correct all of them to match.
> /* Sort by x coordinate: */
> n = 0;
> new_qsort(array, 1024, sizeof array[0], compare_element_n, &n);
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 21:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8739klgf5k.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3742 |
Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> writes: > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: > >>pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: > >>> Michael Press wrote: >>> >>>> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >>>> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >>>> >>>> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. >>> >>> I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. >>> >>> http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ > >>There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like >>functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the >>comparison function. > > I've never needed that argument; what use do you have for that argument? To avoid having to write lots of comparison functions: suppose you are sorting an array of structures with three fields and want to be able to have any of them as primary, secondary and tertiary sort field and to sort ascending or descending on each. Either you write 8 comparison functions, and some nifty code to select them (which would be quicker, true) or you need to pass some extra data into your comparison function. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-12 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <526fd64a-0169-4a72-a84b-fcf1e60ff2da@hg8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3742 |
On May 11, 2:48 pm, Casper H.S. Dik <Casper....@OrSPaMcle.COM> wrote: > Dr Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> writes: > > >There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like > >functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the > >comparison function. > > I've never needed that argument; what use do you have for that argument? > We've got a list of points in 3d space, representing space invaders, and a player, who's also a point in 3d space. We need to sort the baddies by their distance from the player as part of the AI. There's no way of writing the comparision function without either using a global or setting up a temporary array, both of which are nuisances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 08:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DCA7A40.3C76@mindspring.com> |
| In reply to | #3722 |
Dr Nick wrote:
>
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> >
> >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed.
> >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort.
> >>
> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole.
> >
> > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface.
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/
>
> There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like
> functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the
> comparison function.
I don't understand what you mean.
qsort can pass any object type pointer
to the comparison function.
In all of the sort functions that I've written
which are of the same function type as qsort,
a pointer to unsigned char,
is the type that gets passed to the comparison function.
When I want to write a fast sort function,
I use what I refer to as "the e_type interface".
The user defines three macros,
something like:
#define E_TYPE long unsigned e_type
#define MOV(A, B) ((void)(*(A) = *(B)))
#define GT(A, B) (*(A) > *(B))
or maybe even something like:
#define E_TYPE char e_type[sizeof "seven"]
#include <string.h>
#define MOV(A, B) ((void)memcpy((A), (B), sizeof *(A)))
#define GT(A, B) (strlen(*(A)) > strlen(*(B)))
and then the form of the sort function will be something like this:
#include <stddef.h>
typedef E_TYPE;
void
spsort(e_type *array, size_t nmemb)
{
size_t h, t;
e_type *i, *j, *k, *after, temp;
if (nmemb > 1) {
after = array + nmemb;
nmemb /= 4;
h = nmemb + 1;
for (t = 1; nmemb != 0; nmemb /= 4) {
t *= 2;
}
do {
i = h + array;
do {
k = i - h;
if (GT(k, i)) {
j = i;
MOV(&temp, j);
do {
MOV(j, k);
j = k;
if (h + array > k) {
break;
}
k -= h;
} while (GT(k, &temp));
MOV(j, &temp);
}
} while (++i != after);
t /= 2;
h = t * t - t * 3 / 2 + 1;
} while (t != 0);
}
}
I have faster functions than that Shell sort one,
but most of them might be a little long to post.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/e_driver/
--
pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-56972A.19350711052011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #3722 |
In article <87sjslhiqa.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>, Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: > > > Michael Press wrote: > > > >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. > >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. > >> > >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. > > > > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. > > > > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ > > There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like > functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the > comparison function. You are talking about qsort_r(3)? -- Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-12 06:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tyd0fovf.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3782 |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > In article <87sjslhiqa.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>, > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: >> >> > Michael Press wrote: >> > >> >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >> >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >> >> >> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. >> > >> > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. >> > >> > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ >> >> There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like >> functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the >> comparison function. > > You are talking about qsort_r(3)? Maybe: ~$ man qsort [man page displays, it does not mention qsort_r] ~$ man 3 qsort_r No manual entry for qsort_r in section 3 ~$ man qsort_r No manual entry for qsort_r But it's still a flaw in the original design of the standard library - any such function should take and pass on a pointer like this. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-12 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-BF0939.14364612052011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #3787 |
In article <87tyd0fovf.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>,
Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <87sjslhiqa.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Michael Press wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed.
> >> >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort.
> >> >>
> >> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole.
> >> >
> >> > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/
> >>
> >> There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like
> >> functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the
> >> comparison function.
> >
> > You are talking about qsort_r(3)?
>
> Maybe:
>
> ~$ man qsort
> [man page displays, it does not mention qsort_r]
> ~$ man 3 qsort_r
> No manual entry for qsort_r in section 3
> ~$ man qsort_r
> No manual entry for qsort_r
>
> But it's still a flaw in the original design of the standard library -
> any such function should take and pass on a pointer like this.
void
qsort_r(void *base, size_t nel, size_t width, void *thunk,
int (*compar)(void *, const void *, const void *));
The qsort_r() function behaves identically to qsort(), except that it takes an addi-
tional argument, thunk, which is passed unchanged as the first argument to function
pointed to compar. This allows the comparison function to access additional data
without using global variables, and thus qsort_r() is suitable for use in functions
which must be reentrant.
--
Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-12 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r583eg5b.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #3840 |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > In article <87tyd0fovf.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>, > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: > >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: >> >> > In article <87sjslhiqa.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>, >> > Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote: >> > >> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > Michael Press wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >> >> >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >> >> >> >> >> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. >> >> > >> >> > I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. >> >> > >> >> > http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ >> >> >> >> There's a flaw in qsort that I make sure I don't put in my qsort-like >> >> functions: it needs to take another void pointer and pass it to the >> >> comparison function. >> > >> > You are talking about qsort_r(3)? >> >> Maybe: >> >> ~$ man qsort >> [man page displays, it does not mention qsort_r] >> ~$ man 3 qsort_r >> No manual entry for qsort_r in section 3 >> ~$ man qsort_r >> No manual entry for qsort_r >> >> But it's still a flaw in the original design of the standard library - >> any such function should take and pass on a pointer like this. > > > void > qsort_r(void *base, size_t nel, size_t width, void *thunk, > int (*compar)(void *, const void *, const void *)); > > The qsort_r() function behaves identically to qsort(), except that it takes an addi- > tional argument, thunk, which is passed unchanged as the first argument to function > pointed to compar. This allows the comparison function to access additional data > without using global variables, and thus qsort_r() is suitable for use in functions > which must be reentrant. That's the badger. But re-entrancy is (as examples in this thread have shown) far from the only reason for needing it. In fact, no-one even suggested it as an example. -- Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4dca7740$0$81481$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #3712 |
pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes: >Michael Press wrote: > >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed. >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort. >> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. >I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface. >http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/ There is no rule that qsort() is actually a quick sort. Casper --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 08:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DCA7C09.303D@mindspring.com> |
| In reply to | #3741 |
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
>
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >Michael Press wrote:
> >
> >> I could dash off qsort. Its only advantage is speed.
> >> When I want an O(n.log n) search I write heapsort.
> >>
> >> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole.
>
> >I like to write sort functions with a qsort interface.
>
> >http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/
>
> There is no rule that qsort() is actually a quick sort.
The fastest ones that I have are either quicksort
or variations on quicksort.
But most of the sort functions that I have in that directory
aren't quicksort.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/q_sort/pt_sort.c
slsort, "Nonstable simple selection sort:", \
b_sort, "Stable bubble sort:", \
i_sort, "Stable insertionsort:", \
bisort, "Stable binary insertion sort:", \
s0sort, "Nonstable Shell sort \n" \
"with original Shell increment scheme:", \
shsort, "Nonstable Shell sort \n" \
"with Sedgewick increment scheme:", \
hdsort, "Nonstable double sift down heapsort:", \
h_sort, "Nonstable sift down and up heapsort:", \
lqsort, "Nonstable Lomuto style quicksort:", \
q1sort, "Nonrecursive Lomuto style quicksort:", \
sqsort, "Nonstable Sedgewick style quicksort:", \
q2sort, "Nonrecursive Sedgewick style quicksort:", \
qrsort, "Random pivot introspective quicksort:", \
mqsort, "Nonstable quicksort, (nmemb / 2) median:", \
sfsort, "Leapfropg sample quicksort:", \
m_sort, "Stable merge sort uses half buffer:", \
rcsort, "Stable, array of pointers and full buffer:", \
ipsort, "Stable merge, uses two arrays of pointers:", \
llsort, "Stable merge sort uses linked list:", \
--
pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 21:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwrhxlvms.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #3709 |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
[...]
> By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole.
Can you expand on that? Is it something Unix-specific, or does it
affect any C implementation (note the cross-post).
(I presume you're aware that qsort() needn't use the Quicksort
algorithm.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "robertwessel2@yahoo.com" <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 02:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3617b15c-1e1e-4353-a96a-0bf4e79881f0@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #3719 |
On May 10, 11:16 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote: > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> writes: > > [...] > > > By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. > > Can you expand on that? Is it something Unix-specific, or does it > affect any C implementation (note the cross-post). > > (I presume you're aware that qsort() needn't use the Quicksort > algorithm.) I assume he means that Quicksort can go quadratic, and carefully (mis)designed* input can be an effective denial of service attack. As you point out, of course, qsort() doesn't need to implement Quicksort (although most still do, with some having moved to Introsort). *Musser's original paper on Introsort is worth reading just for the section on the (surprising easy) automatic generation of worst case sequences for the common variants of Quicksort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 09:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DCA9197.260@mindspring.com> |
| In reply to | #3731 |
robertwessel2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> On May 10, 11:16 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole.
> >
> > Can you expand on that? Is it something Unix-specific, or does it
> > affect any C implementation (note the cross-post).
> >
> > (I presume you're aware that qsort() needn't use the Quicksort
> > algorithm.)
>
> I assume he means that Quicksort can go quadratic, and carefully
> (mis)designed* input can be an effective denial of service attack.
Leapfrogging samplesort is a variation on quicksort
which is O(n * (log(n)) * (log(n))) for worst case.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p70564506802n575/
However, I dispute the claim by Eliezer A. Albacea, that
"(3) the expected number of data interchanges
is slightly higher than that of Quicksort."
The expected number of data interchanges is much higher.
http://www.mindspring.com/~pfilandr/C/e_driver/
/* BEGIN e_driver.c program output */
Counting comparisons and MOV's for 2 different sorting
Sorting arrays of N number of elements.
Distribution #1: Shuffled
N sqsort NFsort
CMPS MOVS CMPS MOVS
1999999 54273473 29450250 39349553 85578207
2000000 55635331 29418642 39348505 85573743
Total cmps
sqsort: 109908804 Plain Sedgewick quicksort
NFsort: 78698058 Sedgewick loop Leapfrog quicksort
Total movs
sqsort: 58868892
NFsort: 171151950
/* END e_driver.c program output */
--
pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-11 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-67B442.19420811052011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #3719 |
In article <lnwrhxlvms.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > [...] > > By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. > > Can you expand on that? Is it something Unix-specific, or does it > affect any C implementation (note the cross-post). > > (I presume you're aware that qsort() needn't use the Quicksort > algorithm.) Sorry. Meant quicksort. Quicksort can be induced to follow its O(n^2) worst case. -- Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-15 00:23 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87r581ugbe.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #3783 |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > In article <lnwrhxlvms.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > > [...] > > > By the way, qsort(3) has an irremediable security hole. > > > > Can you expand on that? Is it something Unix-specific, or does it > > affect any C implementation (note the cross-post). > > > > (I presume you're aware that qsort() needn't use the Quicksort > > algorithm.) > > Sorry. Meant quicksort. Quicksort can be induced to > follow its O(n^2) worst case. If your security if governed by the speed at which operations are completed, you probably don't have any actual security anyway. In particular what you is strange given that it's often the case that in order to improve security you prefer things slower. And getting to the root of things, since when has "a worst-case O(n^2) algorithm may, in worst case, take O(n^2) operations" been a security hole. Citations, rather than flim-flam, would be nice. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-14 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <iqmvpf$b0f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #3982 |
In article <87r581ugbe.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >And getting to the root of things, since when has "a worst-case >O(n^2) algorithm may, in worst case, take O(n^2) operations" been >a security hole. Citations, rather than flim-flam, would be nice. You must be sure that hostile input can't turn the worst case into the average. That's called an "algorithmic complexity attack". It's only denial of service, not privilege escalation, but still... it's been a recognized category of security issues for a few years. Look it up. -- Alan Curry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-16 04:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87iptbv3up.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #3988 |
pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) writes: > In article <87r581ugbe.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >And getting to the root of things, since when has "a worst-case > >O(n^2) algorithm may, in worst case, take O(n^2) operations" been > >a security hole. Citations, rather than flim-flam, would be nice. > > You must be sure that hostile input can't turn the worst case into the > average. I'm aware of sentences that make sense, and that one doesn't. I would say "try again", but I would't mean it. Phil -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web