Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 14:25 +0000
[OI] chat "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:26 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:29 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 20:48 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:51 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 14:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 01:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 17:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 15:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 22:56 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 23:40 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:32 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:09 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:10 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:42 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:46 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 19:29 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 13:45 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:51 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:38 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 00:27 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 21:24 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-14 09:45 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:19 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:22 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:38 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 06:09 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 21:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 14:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 10:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-12 16:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 17:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:08 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 15:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 12:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 12:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:50 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 12:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 12:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-09 13:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 23:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:57 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 16:11 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 21:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:16 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-12 18:14 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 11:38 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 00:44 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 11:45 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 09:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 22:59 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 15:40 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-09 19:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-13 11:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 14:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 08:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:35 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:19 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:01 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-11 16:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01nhl$klu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96277 |
On 11/10/2016 05:15 AM, gwowen wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:20:09 AM UTC, Melzzzzz wrote: > eadable if I did it with C11 threads. >> >> Ok, I understand that, but for what price? You have to link with C++ >> runtime and add lot of bloatware with it... > > I just wrote a version of my sort code for C, and a version of C++. > Here are the results: > > sortc: 6256 bytes > sortcpp: 6256 bytes. A program that compiles down to an executable of only 6256 bytes is likely to be small enough that you could post the entire source code as part of a message. I recommend doing so, for both programs, so Melzzzz can confirm for himself that the source code compiles to exactly the same size. I recommend including the exact command line options used to compile each version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dc6b5111-47b1-4ed1-842a-7104651106da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96293 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 12:01:30 PM UTC, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 05:15 AM, gwowen wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:20:09 AM UTC, Melzzzzz wrote:
> > eadable if I did it with C11 threads.
> >>
> >> Ok, I understand that, but for what price? You have to link with C++
> >> runtime and add lot of bloatware with it...
> >
> > I just wrote a version of my sort code for C, and a version of C++.
> > Here are the results:
> >
> > sortc: 6256 bytes
> > sortcpp: 6256 bytes.
>
> A program that compiles down to an executable of only 6256 bytes is
> likely to be small enough that you could post the entire source code as
> part of a message. I recommend doing so, for both programs, so Melzzzz
> can confirm for himself that the source code compiles to exactly the
> same size.
> I recommend including the exact command line options used to compile
> each version.
I have now done so, and I'll repeat it here for completeness.
http://pastebin.com/WDqZqXcB
Three source files & a Makefile concatted together - 47 lines total.
# Makefile
default: sortc sortcpp
CFLAGS = -std=c99 -O3
CXXFLAGS = -std=c++11 -O3
sortc: sorttest.o sortc.o
gcc ${CFLAGS} -o sortc sorttest.o sortc.o
sortcpp: sorttest.o sortcpp.o
g++ ${CXXFLAGS} -o sortcpp sorttest.o sortcpp.o
sortc.o: sortc.c
/* sorttest.c */
#define N 10000000
double arr[N];
void sortarray(double arr[],int count);
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
for(int i=0;i<N;++i){
arr[i] = rand();
}
sortarray(arr,N);
}
// sortcpp.cpp
#include <algorithm>
extern "C" void sortarray(double* arr,int n)
{
std::sort(arr,arr+n);
}
/* sortc.c */
#include <stdlib.h>
static int lt(const void*l,const void*r)
{
return *(double*)l < *(double*)r;
}
void sortarray(double arr[],int n)
{
qsort(arr,n,sizeof(double),lt); /* Not sizeof double to annoy RH :) */
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <810c26e6-0410-4376-8c2c-656242e017fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96272 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:33:20 AM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
> Melzzzzz writes:
>
> >> Yes, but it was also what I was saying.
> >
> > Question is: What's advantage of C++ in this case?
>
> I can implement my function in C++, using features in C++.
>
> As a simple example:
> extern "C" void sort_doubles(double array[],int count)
> {
> std::sort(array,array+count);
> }
>
> Want some easy standardised parallelism?
>
> /// Untested - I may have got the lambda syntax wrong
> extern "C" double sum_array_parallel(const double array[], int count)
> {
> std::future<double> fut =
> std::async(std::launch::async,
> [array,count](){
> return std::accumulate(array,array+count/2,0.);
> });
> double last = std::accumulate(array+count/2,array+count,0.);
> return last + fut.get();
> }
>
> I'm sure Jacob will be here shortly to tell you that the latter would be
> simpler and far more readable if I did it with C11 threads.
You can have high level abstractions for async code in C libraries.
But, the problem is that C doesn't have lambdas (boilerplate code is necessary) , I think the lambdas should be analyzed for C. I created the other topic "experimental features" and we could talk about this there.
Why did you use const double array[] instead of const vector &?
Maybe because your compiler is C++ 11 and not C++ 14? The move capture was not been standardized in C++ 11.
I had to make an decision to use std::shared<T> just do allow captures without copies in lambdas when I was using VC++ 2013.
Some years later, the move capture was standardized and implemented.
But the code was already there working.
What was the lesson learned? C++ committee cannot ensure enough user experience on the proposals and they are entering and changing fast. Each version has fixes for the previous features added.
std::future is something there are fixing and it's no more something "good, new" Corotines is the new way. Now, there are a chance of compatible corotines with C. (cppcon 2016 talk)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01kjm$20c$7@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96283 |
On 2016-11-10, Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:33:20 AM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
>> Melzzzzz writes:
>>
>> >> Yes, but it was also what I was saying.
>> >
>> > Question is: What's advantage of C++ in this case?
>>
>> I can implement my function in C++, using features in C++.
>>
>> As a simple example:
>> extern "C" void sort_doubles(double array[],int count)
>> {
>> std::sort(array,array+count);
>> }
>>
>> Want some easy standardised parallelism?
>>
>> /// Untested - I may have got the lambda syntax wrong
>> extern "C" double sum_array_parallel(const double array[], int count)
>> {
>> std::future<double> fut =
>> std::async(std::launch::async,
>> [array,count](){
>> return std::accumulate(array,array+count/2,0.);
>> });
>> double last = std::accumulate(array+count/2,array+count,0.);
>> return last + fut.get();
>> }
>>
>> I'm sure Jacob will be here shortly to tell you that the latter would be
>> simpler and far more readable if I did it with C11 threads.
>
>
> Why did you use const double array[] instead of const vector &?
Because caller code is not C++?
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa705d39-b077-4ec4-a0d1-ddd7c88cc552@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96285 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:10:53 AM UTC-2, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2016-11-10, Thiago Adams wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 6:33:20 AM UTC-2, gwowen wrote:
> >> Melzzzzz writes:
> >>
> >> >> Yes, but it was also what I was saying.
> >> >
> >> > Question is: What's advantage of C++ in this case?
> >>
> >> I can implement my function in C++, using features in C++.
> >>
> >> As a simple example:
> >> extern "C" void sort_doubles(double array[],int count)
> >> {
> >> std::sort(array,array+count);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Want some easy standardised parallelism?
> >>
> >> /// Untested - I may have got the lambda syntax wrong
> >> extern "C" double sum_array_parallel(const double array[], int count)
> >> {
> >> std::future<double> fut =
> >> std::async(std::launch::async,
> >> [array,count](){
> >> return std::accumulate(array,array+count/2,0.);
> >> });
> >> double last = std::accumulate(array+count/2,array+count,0.);
> >> return last + fut.get();
> >> }
> >>
> >> I'm sure Jacob will be here shortly to tell you that the latter would be
> >> simpler and far more readable if I did it with C11 threads.
> >
> >
> > Why did you use const double array[] instead of const vector &?
>
> Because caller code is not C++?
If you pass a vector with C++ 11 all the content will be copied.
There is a fix in C++ 14 and you can move the vector.
But, anyway, in this case it's not a problem. Because the future is waiting you can use capture by reference.
But this not not always the case when you have to chain async calls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01n8e$hir$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96287 |
On 11/10/2016 06:17 AM, Thiago Adams wrote: ... > If you pass a vector with C++ 11 all the content will be copied. The calling code is written in C, so how would that work? How would you write the declaration for the function to be used on the calling side?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65e3e436-2054-4bb7-943d-fdb1e7beed2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96292 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-2, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 06:17 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
> ...
> > If you pass a vector with C++ 11 all the content will be copied.
>
> The calling code is written in C, so how would that work? How would you
> write the declaration for the function to be used on the calling side?
I don't know what exactly is the question.
But:
If you want to have an algorithm to use both with C or C++ you can do:
void AlgoC(const int* p, size_t n){ ... };
inline void AlgoC(const vector<int> & v)
{
return AlgoC(v.data(), v.size());
};
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01rhn$2ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96296 |
On 11/10/2016 07:05 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:56:35 AM UTC-2, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 11/10/2016 06:17 AM, Thiago Adams wrote:
>> ...
>>> If you pass a vector with C++ 11 all the content will be copied.
>>
>> The calling code is written in C, so how would that work? How would you
>> write the declaration for the function to be used on the calling side?
>
> I don't know what exactly is the question.
> But:
>
> If you want to have an algorithm to use both with C or C++ you can do:
>
> void AlgoC(const int* p, size_t n){ ... };
>
> inline void AlgoC(const vector<int> & v)
> {
> return AlgoC(v.data(), v.size());
> };
Your original question, that I was responding to, was about a function
named sum_array_parallel, so I'm not sure why you changed the name to
AlgoC, and changed "int" to "double". I guess you have just lost track
of the context.
Thiago's code defined a function callable from C that calls C++ library
functions to do the actual work. What you seem to be attempting is the
opposite: a function callable from C++ that calls a C function to do the
actual work. Except that it isn't actually a C function, since both
overloads of AgloC have C++ language linkage. That's why Thiago's
version had to declare the function as extern "C".
The key point is that you questioned his use of const double array[]
rather than const vector<double> for the C interface. You do realize
that, in both C and C++, a function parameter declared as const double
array[] is treated as if it were written const double *array? He used
const double array[] for sum_array_parallel() for the same reason that
your first declaration of AlgoC() uses const int *p: because functions
with interfaces that involve a argument of templated type cannot even be
declared in C, much less called from C code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3e8942cf-d7ac-40dc-9d53-a8eb689f2b99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96309 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 8:09:48 AM UTC-5, james...@verizon.net wrote: > On 11/10/2016 07:05 AM, Thiago Adams wrote: ... > Thiago's code defined a function callable from C that calls C++ library I lost track of attribution lines - sorry. That was gowen's code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8737izss4f.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96263 |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes:
> On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also
>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers.
>>>>
>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing
>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language...
>>
>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library
>> interface as you would in C.
>
> Bullshit. C++ makes a way to expose *C interface* not C++ interface.
I literally don't understand what you're trying to say.
"Bullshit. *repeats what I just said*"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o019rp$73i$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96267 |
On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > >> On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >>>>> >>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing >>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... >>> >>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >>> interface as you would in C. >> >> Bullshit. C++ makes a way to expose *C interface* not C++ interface. > > I literally don't understand what you're trying to say. > > "Bullshit. *repeats what I just said*" Well, try to declare C++ object and call member function from other language. Only ABI that is standardized that can do that that I know of is Microsoft COM. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <e8itppFl834U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96270 |
On 11/10/16 09:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >> >>> On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >>>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >>>>>> >>>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing >>>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... >>>> >>>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >>>> interface as you would in C. >>> >>> Bullshit. C++ makes a way to expose *C interface* not C++ interface. >> >> I literally don't understand what you're trying to say. >> >> "Bullshit. *repeats what I just said*" > Well, try to declare C++ object and call member function from other > language. That's why C++ supports C linkage: C is an excellent low level standard. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01fsm$20c$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96274 |
On 2016-11-10, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11/10/16 09:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >>>>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing >>>>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... >>>>> >>>>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >>>>> interface as you would in C. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. C++ makes a way to expose *C interface* not C++ interface. >>> >>> I literally don't understand what you're trying to say. >>> >>> "Bullshit. *repeats what I just said*" >> Well, try to declare C++ object and call member function from other >> language. > > That's why C++ supports C linkage: C is an excellent low level standard. > Does C++ member functions support C linkage? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01mfr$h1j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96258 |
On 10/11/2016 06:36, Gareth Owen wrote: > Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > >> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>> >>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >>> >> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing >> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... > > This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library > interface as you would in C. You mean if someone deliberately used C++ in C mode? But suppose they don't? Someone creating a library in C++ primarily for other C++ users isn't going to go to that trouble. They will expect someone to use a C++ compiler. Hacking an API in C++ in work from ASM is far more difficult than a C API. ASM is a good test, as anything you can do in ASM is adaptable to any other language. (I remember coming across exactly this problem years ago with MS' GDI+ and DirectX.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <132bafc5-4d63-4980-abd4-07b1537f29f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96290 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 11:43:29 AM UTC, Bart wrote: > On 10/11/2016 06:36, Gareth Owen wrote: > > Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > > > >> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also > >>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. > >>> > >>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. > >>> > >> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing > >> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... > > > > This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library > > interface as you would in C. > > You mean if someone deliberately used C++ in C mode? No. I mean writing C++ but using exposing a C interface. Exactly as I said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o022ag$qtq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96315 |
On 10/11/2016 14:36, gwowen wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 11:43:29 AM UTC, Bart wrote: >> On 10/11/2016 06:36, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >>>>> >>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing >>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... >>> >>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >>> interface as you would in C. >> >> You mean if someone deliberately used C++ in C mode? > > No. I mean writing C++ but using exposing a C interface. > Exactly as I said. Extract from wxc.sourceforge.net: "The wxWidgets project provides a popular C++ based framework for GUI programming. In order to port this framework to the Eiffel, Haskell and Ocaml programming languages some efforts have been made in the ELJ and wxHaskell projects. Because it was not possible to use C++ directly from these languages an interfacing layer was written in C in order to produce libraries for linking the functionality of wxWidgets dynamically resp. statically. Originally these projects used the same code base but have diverged in implementation details. The wxC project is the attempt to join the efforts again. The long-term goal is to provide C based import libraries for wxWidgets which can be used in any environment that is unable to bind to the original C++ framework." Notice the 'interfacing layer' that is written in C. Why C? I have the same problem in that, while I can manage to interface to a C API with some effort, I can't do that with a C++ API. Actually I don't even know how to get C to talk to a C++ library. Not unless someone else has already made the effort to create a set of C 'bindings'. But C++ generally seems to require more work and be more of a nightmare to talk to from any other language. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o023h9$vju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96319 |
On 10/11/16 16:05, BartC wrote: > On 10/11/2016 14:36, gwowen wrote: >> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 11:43:29 AM UTC, Bart wrote: >>> On 10/11/2016 06:36, Gareth Owen wrote: >>>> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will >>>>>> also >>>>>> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ >>>>>> compilers. >>>>>> >>>>> Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for >>>>> writing >>>>> interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... >>>> >>>> This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same >>>> library >>>> interface as you would in C. >>> >>> You mean if someone deliberately used C++ in C mode? >> >> No. I mean writing C++ but using exposing a C interface. >> Exactly as I said. > > Extract from wxc.sourceforge.net: > > "The wxWidgets project provides a popular C++ based framework for GUI > programming. In order to port this framework to the Eiffel, Haskell and > Ocaml programming languages some efforts have been made in the ELJ and > wxHaskell projects. Because it was not possible to use C++ directly from > these languages an interfacing layer was written in C in order to > produce libraries for linking the functionality of wxWidgets dynamically > resp. statically. Originally these projects used the same code base but > have diverged in implementation details. The wxC project is the attempt > to join the efforts again. > > The long-term goal is to provide C based import libraries for wxWidgets > which can be used in any environment that is unable to bind to the > original C++ framework." > > Notice the 'interfacing layer' that is written in C. > > Why C? > > I have the same problem in that, while I can manage to interface to a C > API with some effort, I can't do that with a C++ API. Actually I don't > even know how to get C to talk to a C++ library. Not unless someone else > has already made the effort to create a set of C 'bindings'. > > But C++ generally seems to require more work and be more of a nightmare > to talk to from any other language. > C (or a C subset of C++) works well as a lowest common denominator for cross-language interfacing. This is not news, nor does anyone argue otherwise. Does that mean that C is a "better" language than C++, or Python, or Ocaml, or Haskell ? No, it most certainly does not. But it makes it a fine language for specifying interfaces between languages that don't have a clear commonality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01oa2$n8i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96230 |
On 09/11/16 22:28, BartC wrote: > On 09/11/2016 20:35, David Brown wrote: >> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: >>> >>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language >>>> for >>>> anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these >>>> days. >>> >>> What do you thing about these: >>> >>> - web servers >> >> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the bottleneck, >> compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually interpreted) web >> application. So use a language that has all the convenient libraries in >> place, as well as automatic memory management and good string support. >> >>> - javascript engines > > (And interpreters in general.) > >> Maybe C, but you've nothing to lose and a good deal you might gain with >> C++. Remember that once you have enough resources for a little overhead >> in code size, there is almost nothing that can be written in C that >> cannot be written at least as fast and easily in C++, since most all of >> C is a subset of C++. Thus C++ gives you everything that C has, plus a >> good deal more. > > C++ gives you more complicated interface if it needs to talk to anything > else, or you want to produce a shared library callable from any language. > > A C interface is necessarily low-level so that it is not much problem to > figure out how to use it from another language. (It could be better > defined IMO - eg. how wide is 'long'? - but is adequate.) > > So a function taking a char* pointing to a null-terminated sequence is > trivial to set up even from assembly code: > > mov rcx, message > call puts > ... > message: > db 'hello',0 > > But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also > find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. > > Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. > As I said, (almost) everything that can be done in C can be done with C++. If you want to write a function that returns a char* pointing to a null-terminated sequence in C++, you do it in exactly the same way as you do in C. If you want your linking to be as easy as possible, you declare the function extern "C". Now, this might mean you have to have wrapper functions at the interface to turn your neat, automatically managed C++ strings into C-style strings. Alternatively, you can stick to manually managed C-style strings throughout your C++ code. You have more choices available, not less.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19f37699-1873-4173-847c-fe7865fb4315@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96298 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 10:14:30 AM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > On 09/11/16 22:28, BartC wrote: > > On 09/11/2016 20:35, David Brown wrote: > >> On 09/11/16 21:10, Thiago Adams wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:57:58 PM UTC-2, gwowen wrote: > >>> > >>>> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language > >>>> for > >>>> anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these > >>>> days. > >>> > >>> What do you thing about these: > >>> > >>> - web servers > >> > >> Nope. C++, Python, Ruby. The code speed is often not the bottleneck, > >> compared to network speed, file speed, and the (usually interpreted) web > >> application. So use a language that has all the convenient libraries in > >> place, as well as automatic memory management and good string support. If you have to put your webserver on the cloud, the cpu, memory and disk cost money. That means, you need to be efficient. If you have small business, simple webservices this is not a problem. All the infrastructure is done is C (C++) for this reason.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o006bg$5g2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96222 |
Le 09/11/2016 à 21:35, David Brown a écrit : > Maybe C, but you've nothing to lose and a good deal you might gain with > C++. Remember that once you have enough resources for a little overhead > in code size, there is almost nothing that can be written in C that > cannot be written at least as fast and easily in C++, since most all of > C is a subset of C++. Thus C++ gives you everything that C has, plus a > good deal more. Hello? Is there anybody? OK. Thanks. It is just to remind you, David, that are people that do not want that "good deal more" precisely. People that think that simpler languages are better than unreadable ones. Those people use C, a very good language, mind you. True, as you say yourself, nothing that can be written in simple C can't be rewritten into unreadability. Why make simple when you can complexify stuff till you yourself doesn't know exactly what you are writing? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web