Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #13294 > unrolled thread

A portable stack in C

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-14 17:54 +0100
    Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-14 20:55 -0800
      Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 09:22 +0100
        Re: A portable stack in C Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-15 09:00 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 11:26 +0100
        Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 10:05 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 11:25 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 11:08 +0000
            Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 11:45 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 12:57 +0100
                Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 12:39 +0000
                  Re: A portable stack in C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-15 14:26 +0100
                    Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 15:31 +0000
                      Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 12:53 -0800
                        Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 21:15 +0000
                          Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 14:29 -0800
                            Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 22:59 +0000
                          Re: A portable stack in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-15 17:30 -0500
                          Re: A portable stack in C Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-15 22:33 +0000
                            Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 15:07 -0800
                          Re: A portable stack in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 22:37 +0000
                            Re: A portable stack in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-15 23:01 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-15 18:45 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 12:41 -0800
            Re: A portable stack in C Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-15 23:07 -0500
              Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 20:18 -0800
              Re: A portable stack in C Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-15 22:53 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-16 12:00 +0000
                  Re: A portable stack in C falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-11-16 16:08 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2012-01-19 02:41 -0500
        Re: A portable stack in C Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> - 2011-11-15 11:21 -0500
        Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-15 17:53 -0800
      Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:21 +0100
        Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2011-11-15 17:53 -0800
          Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-18 08:13 +0100
    Re: A portable stack in C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 10:14 +0000
      Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:20 +0100
    Re: A portable stack in C Acid Washed China Blue Jeans <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-15 08:13 -0800
    Re: A portable stack in C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-15 16:27 +0000
      Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-15 19:21 +0100
      Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 13:19 -0800
    Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-17 15:45 +0000
      Re: A portable stack in C John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-17 15:56 +0000
      Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-17 18:02 +0100
        Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-17 17:35 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2011-11-17 18:45 +0100
          Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-18 00:27 -0800
            Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-18 10:40 +0100
              Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:22 +0100
              Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-21 00:38 -0800
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 03:44 -0600
                  Re: A portable stack in C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-21 13:00 +0200
                    Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 06:07 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 03:50 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 07:48 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-21 20:11 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-18 12:47 +0000
            Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-18 23:31 -0600
        Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-18 14:45 +0000
          Re: A portable stack in C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-18 10:14 -0500
          Re: A portable stack in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-18 12:20 -0800
            Re: A portable stack in C blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 17:23 +0000
              Re: A portable stack in C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-19 18:49 +0000
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-19 22:41 -0600
                Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:27 +0100
                  Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-21 20:12 +0100
              Re: A portable stack in C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-20 07:50 +0100
            Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 01:24 -0600
              Re: A portable stack in C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-21 05:22 -0800
                Re: A portable stack in C "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-22 03:31 -0600
    Re: A portable stack in C 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-21 06:38 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#13425

Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2011-11-14, io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>> i remember someone says that for calling function
>> it has to be a stack: i'm agree with him
>
> I do not. On many architectures, arguments are passed in registers.  If there
> are many arguments, then some combination of stack and registers is used.
> In general, preparing the machine for a call to a routine requires assembly
> language programming.

As has been discussed at great length here, there has to be a "stack"
in the sense of some kind of last-in first-out data structure to
support recursive function calls.  (In the absence of recursion, each
function could just maintain its own static data area.)  But this
structure, though it's *typically* implemented as a contiguous region
of memory that grows in some particular direction, may be implemented
in other ways.  See Thomas David Rivers's post in this thread.

The fact that people use the word "stack" on both senses has caused a
great deal of confusion.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13557

In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> 
> in the while the train go always more far from home

io_x's English is a lot better than my Italian, but still ....

I have *no* idea what he(?) is getting at here and would be glad
of a translation/explanation.  Anyone?

> i think to these questions:
> is it possible to build a portable stack in C using uns32_t?
> is it possible to define in C a pointer of size 32 bits portable
> as uns32_t? could it be "uns32_t"?
> is it possible using that stack for call of function as
> f(a, b)  <=> push32 b|push32 a| call32 f
> i remember someone says that for calling function
> it has to be a stack: i'm agree with him
> thank you

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13561

In <9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net> blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > in the while the train go always more far from home

> io_x's English is a lot better than my Italian, but still ....

> I have *no* idea what he(?) is getting at here and would be glad
> of a translation/explanation.  Anyone?

He wrote this while riding on a train?

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13563

"blmblm@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> in the while the train go always more far from home
                         ^^^^^
                          goes

nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa

> io_x's English is a lot better than my Italian, but still ....

yes my i/o is not always easy to understand, but i'm lazy
and prefer to write in that way: full of errors

> I have *no* idea what he(?) is getting at here and would be glad
> of a translation/explanation.  Anyone?

lets call one programming language X
i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
without U.B.
and search min C language subset enought for doing that.
what is in  seems to be: 32 bit registers[uin32_t], jumps je, jz[goto]
portable operation on registers [i hope: and, xor, or, not, neg, etc
on uint32_t variables]
what is out is:  the stack, push32, pop32,  esp,

>> i think to these questions:
>> is it possible to build a portable stack in C using uns32_t?
>> is it possible to define in C a pointer of size 32 bits portable
>> as uns32_t? could it be "uns32_t"?
>> is it possible using that stack for call of function as
>> f(a, b)  <=> push32 b|push32 a| call32 f
>> i remember someone says that for calling function
>> it has to be a stack: i'm agree with him
>> thank you

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13565

"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>
> "blmblm@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> messaggio
> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>> io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>                         ^^^^^
>                          goes
>
> nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa

I still don't get this, English *or* Italian.

> lets call one programming language X
> i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> without U.B.

That can work for some kinds of languages. For others, C simply can't 
express what you want to do, then you try emulating the desired behaviour, 
and end up writing an interpreter instead of a compiler.

There was a language called C-- designed for just that purpose of a target
language, but not sure how active that is or how well it worked (or how
widespread were compilers for it; see www.cminusminus.org).

C itself presents a few obstacles to someone trying to use it as a target
language.

Still, 'X -> C -> all cpu' is just about workable, but for preference you'd
have 'X -> specific cpu'. Unless you're just interesting in an interpreter
for X then C is probably as good for it as any other language, if you're not
interested in performance.

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13567

BartC ha scritto:
> "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
[...]
>>
>> nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa
>
> I still don't get this, English *or* Italian.
[...]

BartC, please, don't feed the troll.

-- 
Vincenzo Mercuri | www.backbox.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13583

On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> > "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> > messaggio
> >news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> >> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:

> >>> in the while the train go always more far from home
> >                         ^^^^^
> >                          goes
>
> > nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa
>
> I still don't get this, English *or* Italian.

I put the Italian through Google Translate

"while in the train went farther and farther from home"

and still no joy. So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
sort of metaphor? C being "home" and the train representing the
"journey" away from it?

Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...

> > lets call one programming language X
> > i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> > is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> > without U.B.

C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langaues are
implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
into C. the advantage of this approach is you high portability but a
slow compiler.

I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)

> That can work for some kinds of languages. For others, C simply can't
> express what you want to do, then you try emulating the desired behaviour,
> and end up writing an interpreter instead of a compiler.
>
> There was a language called C-- designed for just that purpose of a target
> language, but not sure how active that is or how well it worked (or how
> widespread were compilers for it; seewww.cminusminus.org).
>
> C itself presents a few obstacles to someone trying to use it as a target
> language.
>
> Still, 'X -> C -> all cpu' is just about workable, but for preference you'd
> have 'X -> specific cpu'. Unless you're just interesting in an interpreter
> for X then C is probably as good for it as any other language, if you're not
> interested in performance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13584

"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> > "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> > messaggio
> >news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> >> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:

> >>> in the while the train go always more far from home
> > ^^^^^
> > goes
>
> > nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa
>
> I still don't get this, English *or* Italian.

I put the Italian through Google Translate

"while in the train went farther and farther from home"

#while the train went far and far from home i thought on these
#below questions

and still no joy. So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
sort of metaphor?

C being "home" and the train representing the
"journey" away from it?

#it is not one metatphor

Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...

> > lets call one programming language X
> > i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> > is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> > without U.B.

C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langaues are
implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
into C. the advantage of this approach is you high portability but a
slow compiler.

#it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
#if they are complex or easy

I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)

#i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
#call32[stack],
#variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32, 
ret_XXbits
# esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
#i think with that all could be easy
#where 32 means 32 bit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13635

"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4ec62755$0$1375$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...

> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
> #call32[stack],
> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32,
> ret_XXbits
> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it

i forget the carry flag

carry flag for check if mod operation overflow on each instruction e.g.
u32  a,b,c,i,j,r;
a+=b|jc  .e
whould have to translate as
a+=b; if(CF==1) goto .e;

it can be useful for big numebers too
[a,b]+[c,r]=[i,j]
a+=c|b++=r|i=a|j=b|jc .e
whould have to translate as
a+=c;b+WithCarry=r;i=a;j=b;if(CF==1) goto .e
or
a+=c; b+=r+(CF==1); i=a; j=b;if(CF==1) goto .e

there is someone other me that understand carry flag is so useful?
it is very good as stack
and iformatic without carry flag and stack would be only pain
and trouble, expecially for who don't know it...

> #i think with that all could be easy
> #where 32 means 32 bit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13686

On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> > > "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> > > messaggio
> > >news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> > >> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> > >> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:

> > >>> in the while the train go always more far from home

<snip train gibberish>

> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> sort of metaphor?
[...]
> #it is not one metatphor

so explain what you mean or shut up about the train


> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>
> > > lets call one programming language X
> > > i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> > > is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> > > without U.B.
>
> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability but a
> slow compiler.
>
> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
> #if they are complex or easy

no.

> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>
> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
> #call32[stack],

is that C

> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32,
> ret_XXbits
> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
> #i think with that all could be easy
> #where 32 means 32 bit

that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13688

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?
> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor
>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me 
> to cry. Are you you fuckin stupid?

You like to argue with me.  You are fucking with me. You don't hear the 
train? Really? Don't fuck with me.


Your are certainly a fucking idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump 
that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13692

"Jo" <none@none.none> writes:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
> >> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
> >>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
> >>>> messaggio
> >>>> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> >>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
> >
> > <snip train gibberish>
> >
> >> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> >> sort of metaphor?
> > [...]
> >> #it is not one metatphor
> >
> > so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me 
> > to cry. Are you you fuckin stupid?

The post I received at my server ended at "train". 

Do not misquote people.

> You like to argue with me.  You are fucking with me. You don't hear the 
> train? Really? Don't fuck with me.
> 
> 
> Your are certainly a fucking idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump 
> that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.

Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more. 
You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.

Phil
-- 
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
-- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13695

Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Jo" <none@none.none> writes:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>>>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto
>>>>>> nel messaggio
>>>>>> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>>>
>>> <snip train gibberish>
>>>
>>>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>>>> sort of metaphor?
>>> [...]
>>>> #it is not one metatphor
>>>
>>> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want
>>> me to cry. Are you you fuckin stupid?
>
> The post I received at my server ended at "train".
>
> Do not misquote people.

I don't quote anyone. Who do think is so important and that I blasphemed?

>
>> You like to argue with me.  You are fucking with me. You don't hear
>> the train? Really? Don't fuck with me.
>>
>>
>> Your are certainly a fucking idiot. Step up, the only one that can
>> trump that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not
>> you.
>
> Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more.
> You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.
>

Amd this fixiation of yours of the train, I am supposed to take that how? 
Why dont you ask your dad about that instead of wasting my time. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13689

Nick Keighley wrote:
"Who will stop the rain"? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13702

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?
> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor
>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the trai
>
>

You mean about how you suck so bad. It was never for you, idiot.


I was here 2 years ago. I put away the guitar, not that I was good at it.
I said, ("said") I will put music on hold.


I suck at playing guitar, but ain't you still here asking me about a 
train.


   yeah, the train and me, it's none of your fucking business.

 Don't you even dare engage me, because I have nothing better to do then 
to get you out of  my face.

>> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>>
>>>> lets call one programming language X
>>>> i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
>>>> is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
>>>> without U.B.
>>
>> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
>> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
>> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability
>> but a
>> slow compiler.
>>
>> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
>> #if they are complex or easy
>
> no.
>
>> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
>> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
>> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
>> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>>
>> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat
>> u32[operators]=u32, #call32[stack],
>
> is that C
>
>> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32,
>> pop32,
>> ret_XXbits
>> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
>> #i think with that all could be easy
>> #where 32 means 32 bit
>
> that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13726

"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b7eb034e-4e54->
#io_x

> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
> #call32[stack],

is that C

> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32,
> ret_XXbits
> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
> #i think with that all could be easy
> #where 32 means 32 bit

#+ carry flag

that definitely isn't C.

#yes i'm ot, it is not C
#but i make a list of what is ok in the programming
#area; i understand they are ok for what i seen about them
#in assembly code i.e: the assembly code on whatsover
#algo is better than C because for above instructions and
#stack use and carry flag use.
#They could be primitive of some portable language....
#C could be one of that

Did you read what I wrote?

#possible i'm not smart enought for understand...
#if i'm not smart enought someone of you read me too? :)
#plonk i deserve
#Have a good day

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13588

"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:636055c1-141d-49bf-a53c-3ab5d5e7bd68@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
> level enough to do some of the things needed.

Because it isn't an assembler. There are some quite straightforward
requirements, such as defining an integer of exactly 32-bits, that were
quite difficult to do (at least until C99).

> (I tried writing a
> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)

Last time I tried to use C as a target, the existing features of C couldn't
express some of the things I wanted to do, so I used workarounds. Then I
found I might as well use these ugly workarounds for everything (since 
no-one would be reading the code). Which meant I didn't really need most of 
C's features: control statements, loops, variables(!), structs, typedefs.

All that was left were char-arrays, functions, goto, and expressions. And
the latter didn't work on any of my types that didn't exactly correspond to
a C type, so functions were needed instead of in-fix operators.

At this point I gave up. The amount of effort to fit a round language into
the square hole of C, and generating syntax which is just right, and then
invoking some C compiler which reports errors on line numbers which have
little to do with your original code, meant it wasn't worth the trouble.

(This wouldn't matter so much if C was really that portable. But from
my experience it seems to be a bit of a myth. Try taking any open-source C
project, and try building it on some esoteric platform such as MS Windows,
and see how far you get!

It also wouldn't matter if you could benefit from super-optimising C
ompilers. But with much of the program structure non-existent, and faced
with some weird-looking code, they would have a hard job.)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13607

Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>>> "blm...@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel
>>> messaggio
>>> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafb...@reader2.news.tin.it>,
>>>> io_x <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>>> ^^^^^
>>> goes
>>
>>> nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa
>>
>> I still don't get this, English *or* Italian.
>
> I put the Italian through Google Translate
>
> "while in the train went farther and farther from home"
>
> and still no joy. So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> sort of metaphor? C being "home" and the train representing the
> "journey" away from it?
>
> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...

That is so cliche, especially at this time of year. You should have
quoted the following universally familiar passage (if not a bit too
pedantic for a group of this caliber):

"Glasses of pebbles in an odyssey already spoken, on hidden stairs from
the box of ended mirrors, then and where it only was yesterday prevailant
seldomly up until a previously unknown familiar time before, she began,
but not with the chimes, which withstood then, disheartening her and
causing her to sing in fine attire blightly engaged but not moreso than
the fisherman."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13593

In article <4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> 
> "blmblm@myrealbox.com" <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:9ikohgF3p7U1@mid.individual.net...
> > In article <4ec14700$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> > io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> in the while the train go always more far from home
>                          ^^^^^
>                           goes
> 
> nel mentre il treno andava sempre più lontano da casa

How is this any help to someone who doesn't speak Italian?
I thought it might be an adage or idiom of some sort, but
a Google search for the above turns up only your post.

> > io_x's English is a lot better than my Italian, but still ....
> 
> yes my i/o is not always easy to understand, but i'm lazy
> and prefer to write in that way: full of errors

This *sounds* like for some reason you *want* to write badly (with
the accompanying risk of being misunderstood), and I can't quite
imagine why anyone would want that.  But perhaps you mean only
that you don't care enough to take the time to try to improve your
English, which is -- your choice, I guess, a matter of priorities.

> > I have *no* idea what he(?) is getting at here and would be glad
> > of a translation/explanation.  Anyone?
> 
> lets call one programming language X
[ snip ]

No, no, I wasn't asking for an explanation of the technical part of
your post -- I want someone to explain the remark about the train!
That's the part that puzzles me.  I guess that wasn't clear,
but I'm not sure what I could have to done to make it clearer.

> is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> without U.B.
> and search min C language subset enought for doing that.
> what is in  seems to be: 32 bit registers[uin32_t], jumps je, jz[goto]
> portable operation on registers [i hope: and, xor, or, not, neg, etc
> on uint32_t variables]
> what is out is:  the stack, push32, pop32,  esp,
> 
> >> i think to these questions:
> >> is it possible to build a portable stack in C using uns32_t?
> >> is it possible to define in C a pointer of size 32 bits portable
> >> as uns32_t? could it be "uns32_t"?
> >> is it possible using that stack for call of function as
> >> f(a, b)  <=> push32 b|push32 a| call32 f
> >> i remember someone says that for calling function
> >> it has to be a stack: i'm agree with him
> >> thank you

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13597

On 11/18/2011 09:45 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <4ec53d42$0$1387$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>,
> io_x <a@b.c.invalid> wrote:
...
>> yes my i/o is not always easy to understand, but i'm lazy
>> and prefer to write in that way: full of errors
> 
> This *sounds* like for some reason you *want* to write badly (with
> the accompanying risk of being misunderstood), and I can't quite
> imagine why anyone would want that.

As far as I can tell, he does want to be misunderstood. He's certainly
succeeding at it, so if it isn't explicitly his goal in life, he's got a
problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web