Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #92512 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-19 14:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-22 05:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 355 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-20 09:36 +1200
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-19 22:48 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 14:56 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:56 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-22 17:09 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:21 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:47 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 08:55 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-22 09:27 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 09:41 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-22 20:19 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 12:54 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 09:14 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 05:23 -0700
Re: Default values in #define mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 05:42 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 05:52 -0700
Re: Default values in #define mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-23 06:01 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:06 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:01 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 15:56 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:59 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Default values in #define matt@godbolt.org - 2016-08-23 06:47 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 15:57 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 15:31 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:43 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 16:06 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:15 -0700
Re: Default values in #define albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-04 13:26 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 22:07 -0600
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:22 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-07 00:50 -0600
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:33 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-07 23:06 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 01:44 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-08 06:58 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 08:16 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-11 02:47 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 15:49 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 15:52 -0800
Re: Default values in #define asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-09 00:52 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:19 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 04:43 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 14:18 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 07:22 -0800
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:00 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 22:14 +0100
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 16:07 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 17:00 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 17:46 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 08:37 -0800
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-10 09:42 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 10:05 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-11 02:51 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 04:40 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-11 23:06 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 03:15 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-12 16:12 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 07:33 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-13 01:45 -0600
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 16:49 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 10:25 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:50 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 04:02 -0800
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 13:14 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 05:57 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 14:32 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 05:58 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 06:21 -0800
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 14:41 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 06:47 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 16:24 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 07:30 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:12 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 12:21 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 15:02 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 13:19 -0800
Petty and unprofessional (Was: Default values in #define) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-13 16:46 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 09:04 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 20:06 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:19 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 11:33 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 11:44 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 10:04 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-14 14:28 -0600
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:23 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 16:10 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 18:54 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 18:57 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 02:53 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 05:59 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-14 12:03 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-14 12:22 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-14 17:09 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-14 18:37 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 05:25 -0800
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-12 07:31 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 07:35 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 09:17 -0800
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-12 11:03 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:41 -0800
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-12 12:31 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 13:13 -0800
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 20:22 +0000
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 14:49 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 07:10 -0800
Re: Default values in #define luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 07:21 -0800
Re: Default values in #define jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 10:33 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-11 16:22 +0100
Re: Default values in #define luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 13:54 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 14:09 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-13 14:31 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 16:11 -0800
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-12-21 05:50 -0600
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-21 13:10 +0100
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-22 12:56 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-22 21:11 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-22 15:47 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-23 11:54 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 20:07 +0100
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 06:25 +0100
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-24 10:34 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-08-24 08:50 -0400
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-24 15:37 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-24 11:58 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-25 01:27 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-24 22:28 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-24 23:38 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-25 10:44 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 07:29 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 10:26 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 11:11 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 12:03 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-29 09:28 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 22:51 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-29 16:35 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 01:44 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-30 10:41 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 21:24 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 12:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 09:17 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-31 22:46 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-31 10:29 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 10:12 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-31 12:30 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 11:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-31 22:56 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-01 08:17 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 22:18 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-31 22:34 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-01 00:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-02 05:19 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-09-01 11:38 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-01 10:03 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-01 10:31 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-01 12:50 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-09-01 21:30 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-02 05:37 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-02 08:16 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 22:20 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-06 07:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-11 06:54 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-02 08:40 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-02 10:16 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-04 15:16 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-25 08:28 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 00:54 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 01:00 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 11:17 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 04:08 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 06:09 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 17:11 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 09:31 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 12:48 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 09:50 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:01 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 10:57 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-31 06:09 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-26 12:24 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:27 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-26 17:39 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-26 21:49 +0100
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:51 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:46 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-08-26 17:37 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 15:05 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-27 10:25 +1200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 16:25 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-27 13:47 +1200
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 19:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-26 22:54 -0400
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-26 21:11 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-27 18:25 +1200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 09:11 -0400
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-27 06:33 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 10:16 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-27 13:17 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 16:26 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-27 13:10 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 16:35 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 09:28 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-29 15:38 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 13:27 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-29 16:42 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 14:16 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-29 17:24 -0400
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:21 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 08:12 -0400
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 15:24 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 10:53 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-30 10:34 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 14:44 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-30 12:48 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 17:19 -0400
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 11:24 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 10:33 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 09:51 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 22:46 -0400
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-30 16:26 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-03 17:31 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 16:03 -0800
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 21:36 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 17:30 -0400
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 12:39 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-31 03:57 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 15:34 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-31 07:33 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 10:46 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 10:03 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-31 22:52 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-01 07:41 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-09-01 14:58 -0400
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-31 02:27 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 08:21 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 09:05 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 09:15 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-02 22:22 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 08:41 +1200
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 20:34 -0400
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 09:41 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-30 08:07 +1200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 15:41 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 16:30 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 17:14 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 17:20 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 23:37 -0700
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-30 02:19 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:26 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-30 04:40 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:56 +0200
Re: Default values in #define albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-04 15:43 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-30 19:34 +1200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-30 00:51 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:36 +1200
Re: Default values in #define Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 00:39 -0500
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-26 21:40 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-27 09:22 -0400
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-29 11:36 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-12-09 16:26 -0800
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 06:34 +0100
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-27 12:48 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:12 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:10 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 10:18 -0700
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 10:49 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 14:48 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 09:14 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-26 08:59 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:43 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-29 22:58 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 07:14 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-30 00:14 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 00:26 -0700
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-30 02:10 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-30 10:47 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 03:32 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:38 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 04:44 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 14:00 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-30 18:55 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Default values in #define me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 14:11 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Default values in #define me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:54 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 06:27 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:09 +0100
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-30 16:06 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:35 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-30 04:39 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:40 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 15:17 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-29 06:47 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:58 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-29 09:09 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 23:16 +0200
Re: Default values in #define already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-31 02:02 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-31 12:49 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-31 09:02 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-25 10:31 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 10:01 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:24 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 10:43 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 23:29 +0200
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-29 16:27 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-25 10:02 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 10:33 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-25 14:12 -0700
Re: Default values in #define supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-25 14:22 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-22 23:13 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:39 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 09:32 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 05:33 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 06:22 -0700
Re: Default values in #define David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-23 16:13 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 07:35 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 19:08 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-24 09:05 +0200
Re: Default values in #define mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-24 00:49 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 05:40 -0700
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-19 22:56 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:14 +1200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 18:09 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-20 13:15 +1200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 19:10 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:50 +1200
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-20 10:35 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-20 03:13 -0700
Re: Default values in #define BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-20 12:24 +0100
Re: Default values in #define Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-21 00:14 +1200
Re: Default values in #define gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-20 14:13 +0000
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 05:17 -0700
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 12:08 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-20 14:06 +0100
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 12:14 -0700
Re: Default values in #define Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2016-08-21 12:51 +0200
Re: Default values in #define "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 05:11 -0700
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 16:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a29c869-cc96-4726-89a6-d6458fdfa6fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92908 |
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 4:29:26 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> This is low-level code. It is going to be target-specific anyway!
Hardware specific shouldn't need to imply compiler-specific if code
doesn't need a compiler to do anything that all compilers should be
able to do without difficulty. Any compiler which allows any sort
of external function call to code it can't see would need to be able
to synchronize the state of objects with the state of any memory that
could be seen by such a function, and ensure that the first read of
any object is satisfied by performing a read from that memory.
A lot of code was written in days when compilers treated many things as
implicit memory barriers, and a lot of that code is still in use. If
code would work fine with an optimizer that avoids reordering memory
operations across certain constructs, should not a compiler whose optimizer
can achieve most of the usable optimizations be considered superior to
one whose only choices are to disable all optimizations or risk having it
include optimizations that aren't usable along with those that are?
Incidentally, I find it ironic that C was designed around the idea that
compilers should be simple, but compilers' efforts to use rules that were
never intended to be optimized around aggressively has complicated them
to the point that compilers can't follow them correctly. My lastest find
from gcc 6.2 x86-64 tested on godbolt:
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef long long T1;
typedef int64_t T2; // A "long"; not alias-compatible with "long long"
#define T1FMT "%lld"
#define T1VALUE 1
#define T2VALUE 2
T1 blah3(void *p1, void *p2)
{
T1 *t1p, *t1p2;
T2 *t2p;
t1p = p1;
t2p = p2;
T1 temp;
*t1p = T1VALUE; // Write as T1
*t2p = T2VALUE; // Write as T2
temp = *t2p; // Read as T2
t1p2 = (T1*)t2p; // Visible T2 to T1 pointer conversion
*t1p2 = temp; // Write as T1
return *t1p; // Read as T1
}
int main(void)
{
void *p = malloc(sizeof (T1) + sizeof (T2));
T1 result = blah3(p,p);
free(p);
printf("The result is " T1FMT, result);
return 0;
}
Clean compilation with option flags "-x c -O3 -fstrict-aliasing -Wall"; the
generated code for test3 unconditionally returns 1 even though the reads
and writes happen in a sequence which complies with the Effective Type
rules, since nothing is ever read as any type other than the one with which
it was last written.
> If you want most of the code to be portable and efficient, you do as
> other people do - make a "system.h" or "target.h" header file containing
> macros for things like compiler/memory barriers. Perhaps the header
> will have a bunch of pre-processor conditionals that identify typical
> compilers and targets, or perhaps it is left to the code user to fill in
> the necessary parts.
There's a lot of code out there that was written in the days when compilers
had more limited optimizers, and was intended to give compilers the
information needed to optimize it safely, using the best means available
when it was written. I very seldom memory barriers in code targeting
machines which don't include hardware-level reordering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 10:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <npn8af$dpb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92693 |
On 8/25/2016 1:31 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/08/16 07:28, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:28:07 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
>>> I don't know what embedded compilers /you/ have been using, but I have
>>> been using ones that do "aggressive optimisations" such as type-based
>>> alias analysis for 20+ years.
>>
>> Got some names? How aggressively did they do type-based analysis, and to
>> what extent did they try to recognize indications that aliasing was likely?
>
> Diab Data was one I remember from that age (it's now owned by Wind
> River, which is in turn owned by Intel).
>
>> Given a construct like:
>>
>> void set_lower_half_to_0x8000(uint32_t *n)
>> {
>> ((uint16_t*)n)[IS_BIG_ENDIAN] = 0x8000;
>> }
>
> I would not write such code - not even 20 years ago - so I can't say for
> sure.
>
>>
>> would the compilers of 20 years ago assume that the method would only be
>> called with the addresses of uint16_t objects, or would they recognize
>> that the code is modifying something that has been identified with a
>> pointer of type uint32_t, and thus is likely modifying something of type
>> uint32_t?
>>
>> How do the compilers you use regard the relative sequencing of volatile-
>> qualified and non-volatile-qualified operations? If volatile accesses
>> aren't treated as memory barriers, how would you handle something like
>> copying arbitrary-type data to a buffer and then starting a DMA transfer?
>
> Volatile access are not, and never have been, memory barriers. If you
> think compilers sequence non-volatile and volatile operations, then you
> are simply wrong. You are not alone in this - it's a mistake many
> people have made - but you are wrong. And if you think older compilers
> guaranteed something different, then you are /very/ wrong.
>
> How do you make sure your buffer transfers are sequenced correctly with
> respect to the volatile transfers? You have three options:
>
> 1. Use volatile accesses when doing the buffer transfers. Since you
> will be copying the data anyway, you are not going to lose efficiency.
> Note that "what constitutes a volatile access is implementation defined"
> - but most (probably all) compilers define simple and direct volatile
> reads and writes in the obvious way.
>
> 2. Use a memory barrier. This has traditionally been
> implementation-dependent, such as "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" for
> gcc. With C11, "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)" should do
> the job.
FWIW, "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" is a compiler barrier, not a full
memory barrier like "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)". I think
that a compiler barrier in C11 is "atomic_signal_fence".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48e7729e-7531-40ca-8c2c-2f941b9e3864@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92701 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:02:16 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> FWIW, "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" is a compiler barrier, not a full
> memory barrier like "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)". I think
> that a compiler barrier in C11 is "atomic_signal_fence".
Does the C11 standard define any means via which an implementation could
provide things like atomic_signal_fence without being required to provide
things like full memory barriers? In many freestanding implementations,
the programmer will know more than the compiler about the behavior of the
caching controller, and so user code may be able to extend compiler barriers
to full barriers even if the compiler can't, but if there isn't some form
of compiler barrier available user code won't be able to guarantee anything
except through crude and inefficient kludges.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <npnn0q$450$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92704 |
On 8/25/2016 10:33 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 12:02:16 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> FWIW, "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" is a compiler barrier, not a full
>> memory barrier like "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)". I think
>> that a compiler barrier in C11 is "atomic_signal_fence".
>
> Does the C11 standard define any means via which an implementation could
> provide things like atomic_signal_fence without being required to provide
> things like full memory barriers?
I do not know.
> In many freestanding implementations,
> the programmer will know more than the compiler about the behavior of the
> caching controller, and so user code may be able to extend compiler barriers
> to full barriers even if the compiler can't, but if there isn't some form
> of compiler barrier available user code won't be able to guarantee anything
> except through crude and inefficient kludges.
atomic_signal_fence is the compiler barrier you are looking for. C11 has
them, but many C11 impls do not support any of them. C++11 is a
different story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9affbdb2-d0f6-41b3-8c7b-82ca5b55c21f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92708 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:13:08 PM UTC-5, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > atomic_signal_fence is the compiler barrier you are looking for. C11 has > them, but many C11 impls do not support any of them. C++11 is a > different story. By my understanding, threading support is optional, but I don't recall there being a means via which implementations can promise to support some of the features without having to support all, even though some features (like atomic_signal_fence) should be supportable on all implementations. If the Standard were to specify that any data may be accessed as any type provided that accesses of disjoint types were separated by such a barrier, that would enormously improve the semantics of the language, allowing many hot loops to be sped up by 2x, and in extreme cases increasing by orders of magnitude the speed with which some APIs could be implemented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 16:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nq1gpf$8qd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92701 |
On 25/08/16 19:02, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/25/2016 1:31 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> 2. Use a memory barrier. This has traditionally been
>> implementation-dependent, such as "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" for
>> gcc. With C11, "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)" should do
>> the job.
>
> FWIW, "asm volatile("" ::: "memory")" is a compiler barrier, not a full
> memory barrier like "atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_seq_cst)". I think
> that a compiler barrier in C11 is "atomic_signal_fence".
>
Yes, I have been a bit inaccurate with my terms here. asm("" :::
"memory") only affects the compiler's ordering and caching of reads and
writes - it does not generate any cpu instructions to force ordering of
memory accesses. Often the compiler barrier is all you need, but in
some cases you will want some sort of "dsync" (ARM) or "eieio" (PPC)
instruction as well. Presumably an implementation of
atomic_thread_fence will do this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 23:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npfptm$jaf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92583 |
On 22/08/16 17:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 22/08/16 16:56, Chad wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:48:24 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/20/16 09:22 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>>>>> I tried to do this today, and the compiler balked. Is there a syntax
>>>>>> where this idea is legal (line 06 and the [c = "hello"] part)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 01: void myfunc(int value, char* text)
>>>>>> 02: {
>>>>>> 03: printf("%d %s\n", value, text);
>>>>>> 04: }
>>>>>> 05:
>>>>>> 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c)
>>>>>> 07:
>>>>>> 08: abc(myfunc, 2);
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want C++, you know where to find it!
>>>>
>>>> The irony is that he uses C++ despite posting in c.l.c.
>>>
>>> How did you know that homegirl was using C++?
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean with the "homegirl" reference - perhaps it
>> is some American slang that I don't get.
>
> Yep. It's Chad's derogatory name calling directed at me.
>
I guessed as much, but I still don't get the point. I suppose I never
really understand the point of such name-calling. There is no need to
explain it, of course.
>> But we know that Rick programs basically in C, but using a C++ compiler,
>> because he has told us. He believes that full C++ is too complicated a
>> language, but takes advantage of a few C++ features in his basically C
>> programming.
>
> I think it's both too complex and an incredibly messy syntax, though I
> think there are some truly brilliant aspects of its extension of C.
At least some of its messiness is because of its C ancestry - in order
to keep compatibility, it was unable to change some of the less
appealing parts of C. But yes, it has plenty of complications and messy
syntax - although I don't know any language that is powerful and
feature-rich, and does not have a messy syntax or complications. (I
realise you will have different opinions, and I am not trying to provoke
an argument - but I think your CAlive syntax is very much messier and
more complex than C++. Sometimes these things are rather subjective.)
>
>> And his (currently) preferred development environment is
>> MSVC, which has very good C++ support but quite poor C support (maybe
>> that's different now that they are using clang).
>
> Is that true that Microsoft is using clang now? Does that mean that clang
> is an optional compiler? Or that Microsoft is using clang as part of its
> VC++ compilers (as your reply seems to indicate)?
>
I think the idea is to use clang as a front-end for C, but stick to VC's
back end. But I am not an MSVC user, and I don't know the details.
> If so, despite its many improvements I shall abandon all new aspects of
> Visual Studio 2015 and later, as I want nothing to do with Apple. Clang's
> logo is a fire breathing dragon, for crying out loud:
>
> http://llvm.org/Logo.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern
>
First, clang and llvm are not Apple products. Apple is the major
sponsor and contributor, but so are Google, Mozilla, Intel, MIPS,
various academic institutes, and lots of individuals and smaller
companies. Apple pays people to contribute because they want to use the
tools - they don't own anything.
Secondly, while I am not a fan of some of Apple's business practices, it
does not have a record of legal convictions close to that of Microsoft -
yet you use their products. Frankly, if you consider Apple to be so
morally unacceptable that you won't touch anything they work with, then
it is hypocrisy to use products of Google, Microsoft, Intel, etc. -
along with anything made from oil, meat, and practically everything else
you come across in daily life in Western society. I know you have a lot
against many modern practices - so do many people, although not always
for the same reasons. Just avoid buying iThingies if you don't want to
support Apple.
Thirdly, don't get so worked up about logos. Do you boycott Scotland
because we have a unicorn in our coat of arms? Do you avoid BSD
because of its devil "Beastie" logo? Do you avoid sending emails,
because the programs that pass them on are called "mailer daemons"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-22 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a872be5f-44eb-4995-b65f-85b9004f19b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92608 |
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:13:35 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/08/16 17:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > If so, despite its many improvements I shall abandon all new aspects of
> > Visual Studio 2015 and later, as I want nothing to do with Apple. Clang's
> > logo is a fire breathing dragon, for crying out loud:
> >
> > http://llvm.org/Logo.html
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern
>
> Secondly, while I am not a fan of some of Apple's business practices, it
> does not have a record of legal convictions close to that of Microsoft -
> yet you use their products.
Did you read my reply?
-----[ Begin ]-----
All of Apple's products are to be avoided. The only reason I've used
Microsoft's products are because I used them before I was saved, and God
received me in my stead, and there are several cases where I can remember
in my pre-salvation days the hand of some (at the time I thought) force
at work in my life, guiding me, including my original introduction into
Visual Studio 98, and later 2002 and 2003 (before I was saved in 2004).
It's also the fundamental reason why I'm writing my own compiler, even
my own complete hardware and software stack, so that I have my own tools
upon which to build everything, tools founded upon an offering unto the
Lord Jesus Christ.
-----[ End ]-----
I have wrestled many times since being saved about continuing on in software
development using Microsoft products, and many people have come forward
accusing me of being a hypocrite for continuing to use them, while railing
against the company (Microsoft).
I have come to a place where I am comfortable in moving forward because my
goals are CAlive, my own kernel, and my own hardware, all dedicated unto
the Lord. I spelled all of this out in this video back in 2012, and have
become more solidified in my position since then (begins about 30 minutes
in, all the way to the end):
http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2012_12_08__01_vvmmc__and_vfrps_relationship_to_christianity.ogv
If you can't see the video, use VLC (http://www.videolan.org).
You've said you don't like to watch any of the videos I post, so I doubt
you'll gain a proper understanding of my position on this matter, and will
continue to shoot from the hip of ignorance. As such, this will likely be
my last reply to you on this matter.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 09:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <npgu6k$gm5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92609 |
On 22/08/16 23:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 5:13:35 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> On 22/08/16 17:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> If so, despite its many improvements I shall abandon all new aspects of >>> Visual Studio 2015 and later, as I want nothing to do with Apple. Clang's >>> logo is a fire breathing dragon, for crying out loud: >>> >>> http://llvm.org/Logo.html >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern >> >> Secondly, while I am not a fan of some of Apple's business practices, it >> does not have a record of legal convictions close to that of Microsoft - >> yet you use their products. > > Did you read my reply? > Yes. And I understand why you use Microsoft software despite not liking the company, and why you want to write your own replacements. But that does not provide a rational, consistent or logical reason to avoid a piece of software simply because Apple is involved with its development. Picking on Apple as a company to be avoided at all costs is prejudice - they are no worse than any other major IT company, or pretty much any major company the world over. That is, unless you have some sort of personal grievance against the company other than the usual corporate immorality (exploiting workers, abusing monopoly positions, bullying other companies, over-charging customers, etc.). > > You've said you don't like to watch any of the videos I post, so I doubt > you'll gain a proper understanding of my position on this matter, and will > continue to shoot from the hip of ignorance. As such, this will likely be > my last reply to you on this matter. > No, I believe I understand your position reasonably well. I haven't watched your videos - and as you know, I don't intend to do so. But I have read enough of your posts over the years to understand what drives you (I don't have to agree with you to understand your motives). Still, it always bugs me when someone goes out of their way to cause themselves inconvenience, for no apparent sensible reason. Clearly, this is all up to you - I'm not going to argue more about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c68474f6-569b-4574-96d0-d4212a1bd6a9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92614 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 3:32:46 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > ...I have read enough of your posts over the years to understand what drives > you (I don't have to agree with you to understand your motives). Got me all figured out do you? Well, that makes one of us. :-) > Still, > it always bugs me when someone goes out of their way to cause themselves > inconvenience, for no apparent sensible reason. I seek to serve the Lord and have Him as a foundation in all I do. I see utility in having computers. I do not see utility in having them given over to money-making endeavors, but rather to reach out to mankind and say, "Here is our [the hardware and software designers] best offering. Here is all of the source code. If you can improve it, we will all benefit." What we are able to offer up should be a service given to one another. The resources came from God, put here in creation, and we are able to harness and wield them into the multitude of creations we are able. But they should not be done for money. They should be done for the love of God living in each one of us, which means also the love for one another being paramount within our Earthly goals toward one another (helping, loving, caring, teaching, guiding, and so on). Love is the goal, and then an application of that love, and without artificial barriers and binding forces preventing progress for selfish needs (people imposing upon other people limitations which should not otherwise exist). There should be no pigeonholing of technologies, or preventing people from utilizing that which was created by someone else. We are all here together, and we are far stronger when we are all using the fullness of what we've been given to help one another. If you would listen to that video I posted, you'd hear a lot of that kind of guidance. It addresses what is missing in this world, what I am trying to do with my product, and trying to encourage other people to do with the interests in their lives. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8507afb-77bd-4466-b17a-29f51c5faac6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92614 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:32:46 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > Picking on Apple as a company to be avoided at all costs > is prejudice - they are no worse than any other major IT company, or > pretty much any major company the world over. That is, unless you have > some sort of personal grievance against the company other than the usual > corporate immorality (exploiting workers, abusing monopoly positions, > bullying other companies, over-charging customers, etc.). > There was a period when the Apple Mac had very much a niche market. The desktop publishing software was good, and lots of small magazines and other media organisations used it. It genuinely was for people who were creative types and a bit different. But they tried to keep the image going after the company's fortunes had been restored and they were once more pumping out devices for the mass consumer market. So for a long time, their advertising was very deceptive and manipulative, encouraging customers to define themselves by their consumption. They were called out on it by the Lord Chief Rabbi (for non-Brits, he writes a column in The Times, mainly read by non-Jews). It's fairly rare for a British religious leader to single out a company for criticism in that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ae2b6e8-e08f-40e8-9577-a0b8fba598ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92628 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:13:55 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:32:46 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> >
> > Picking on Apple as a company to be avoided at all costs
> > is prejudice - they are no worse than any other major IT company, or
> > pretty much any major company the world over. That is, unless you have
> > some sort of personal grievance against the company other than the usual
> > corporate immorality (exploiting workers, abusing monopoly positions,
> > bullying other companies, over-charging customers, etc.).
> >
> There was a period when the Apple Mac had very much a niche market. The
> desktop publishing software was good, and lots of small magazines and
> other media organisations used it. It genuinely was for people who were
> creative types and a bit different.
> But they tried to keep the image going after the company's fortunes had
> been restored and they were once more pumping out devices for the mass
> consumer market. So for a long time, their advertising was very deceptive
> and manipulative, encouraging customers to define themselves by their
> consumption. They were called out on it by the Lord Chief Rabbi (for non-Brits,
> he writes a column in The Times, mainly read by non-Jews).
>
> It's fairly rare for a British religious leader to single out a company for criticism
> in that way.
To be clear, in MY case, it is not just about Apple. It is about all
large corporations. I see the same behavior in Oracle, Microsoft,
Google, Intel, and many others.
The Bible teaches that the love of money is the root of all evil, and
that in pursuing it many have pierced themselves through with many
sorrows. And that teaching is correct.
There are people in need, people without food, clothing, medicine, even
clean water, and these companies have 100s of billions in cash on hand.
The efforts we (as the living entities in this world) need to occupy,
are those which are focused on loving and helping one another. Perhaps
the greatest mathematician who would've ever lived died today at age 4
because of starvation. Or a disease that could've been prevented with
clean water and better housing conditions.
Eben Moglen once said (paraphrased from memory): "How many Einsteins
do you want to throw away today? How many Picassos?"
It's in one of these two videos from 2012. I haven't watched them in
years, and do not remember which one it was in:
"Why Freedom of Thought Requires Free Media and Free/Libre Software)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOk4Y4inVY
"Innovation Under Austerity"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2VHf5vpBy8
We owe it to the living, breathing, people made of God in this world to
do our best to serve them and their needs. We are stronger together,
when our focus is on people, than we are individually when our "leaders"
focus on isolating us, dividing us, separating "us" from "them" with
contrived organizations like "Black lives matter" and the like.
This world is moving into wholly evil pursuits, from its governments, to
its corporations, to those forces behind the scenes running both. It is
time for people to turn to God, and seek and learn from Him, and then to
go out into the world and teach the people what the enemy of this world
will not teach them: real love, beginning and ending in Jesus Christ,
and applied out from Him into each of us, out to all of us, through our
hands, our hearts, our minds, our possessions.
We are stronger together than we are separate. And the way the Bible
teaches us to live is thusly: serve everyone else, and in so doing
you'll find that while you are looking to make the people's lives in
your life better, all of the people you encounter are also working to
make your life better. You give out tremendously, but you also receive
far more so. And because everyone's giving, the gain is internal, not
external, and it endures unto life, as all such giving is of love, and
love is of Jesus Christ.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 16:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nphlmc$rk8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92629 |
On 23/08/16 15:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:13:55 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:32:46 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> Picking on Apple as a company to be avoided at all costs >>> is prejudice - they are no worse than any other major IT company, or >>> pretty much any major company the world over. That is, unless you have >>> some sort of personal grievance against the company other than the usual >>> corporate immorality (exploiting workers, abusing monopoly positions, >>> bullying other companies, over-charging customers, etc.). >>> >> There was a period when the Apple Mac had very much a niche market. The >> desktop publishing software was good, and lots of small magazines and >> other media organisations used it. It genuinely was for people who were >> creative types and a bit different. >> But they tried to keep the image going after the company's fortunes had >> been restored and they were once more pumping out devices for the mass >> consumer market. So for a long time, their advertising was very deceptive >> and manipulative, encouraging customers to define themselves by their >> consumption. They were called out on it by the Lord Chief Rabbi (for non-Brits, >> he writes a column in The Times, mainly read by non-Jews). >> >> It's fairly rare for a British religious leader to single out a company for criticism >> in that way. > > To be clear, in MY case, it is not just about Apple. It is about all > large corporations. I see the same behavior in Oracle, Microsoft, > Google, Intel, and many others. That is precisely my point. I fully appreciate that you don't like corporate greed, and see money (or the pursuit of money) as the root of all evil. You don't have to be religious to agree with that. All I object to is the singling out of Apple - you refuse to use clang, simply because Apple has sponsored much of its development. Yet you will use browsers paid for by Google, development tools written by MS, chips made by Intel, and so on. If your dreams come true, you will gradually be able to replace those companies' products - but until then, you use them. So why does Apple deserve a special position in your naughty list?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a339be7-c3df-46d4-87ec-d44222762f9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92641 |
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 10:13:42 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 23/08/16 15:22, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:13:55 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 8:32:46 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Picking on Apple as a company to be avoided at all costs
> >>> is prejudice - they are no worse than any other major IT company, or
> >>> pretty much any major company the world over. That is, unless you have
> >>> some sort of personal grievance against the company other than the usual
> >>> corporate immorality (exploiting workers, abusing monopoly positions,
> >>> bullying other companies, over-charging customers, etc.).
> >>>
> >> There was a period when the Apple Mac had very much a niche market. The
> >> desktop publishing software was good, and lots of small magazines and
> >> other media organisations used it. It genuinely was for people who were
> >> creative types and a bit different.
> >> But they tried to keep the image going after the company's fortunes had
> >> been restored and they were once more pumping out devices for the mass
> >> consumer market. So for a long time, their advertising was very deceptive
> >> and manipulative, encouraging customers to define themselves by their
> >> consumption. They were called out on it by the Lord Chief Rabbi (for non-Brits,
> >> he writes a column in The Times, mainly read by non-Jews).
> >>
> >> It's fairly rare for a British religious leader to single out a company for criticism
> >> in that way.
> >
> > To be clear, in MY case, it is not just about Apple. It is about all
> > large corporations. I see the same behavior in Oracle, Microsoft,
> > Google, Intel, and many others.
>
> That is precisely my point. I fully appreciate that you don't like
> corporate greed, and see money (or the pursuit of money) as the root of
> all evil. You don't have to be religious to agree with that.
It's not about religion with Jesus Christ, with Christianity. It's about
a personal relationship. Religion has almost nothing to do with it.
People can do all manner of things without knowing Jesus Christ. They
will just only be done here on this Earth, and then it will be the end
of those things and the people themselves because they were only out for
a pursuit of self. It's what the Bible means when it says:
http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/24-37.htm
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son
of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating
and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that
Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall
also the coming of the Son of man be.
God's blessings are real:
http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/5-45.htm
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth
rain on the just and on the unjust."
He gives everyone the chance and opportunity time and time and time again
to come to Him, acknowledge their sin, ask forgiveness, and be saved. But
because of sin, and the lure of sin, and the desire for each person to be
their own personal god subject to none other, people do not want God.
"Everybody wants to rule the world."
Right and proper things tie back to Jesus Christ because He is right and
proper and has taught us those things which are right and proper, not
just because man feels so, but because God has declared.
The entirety of creation speaks of Jesus as the Creator, and us as the
created, and us needing Him, and Him providing for us. And the more we
learn about everything, the more we realize the extent to which He is
actively, continually, and in all ways, involved in everything in our
lives.
> All I object to is the singling out of Apple - you refuse to use clang,
> simply because Apple has sponsored much of its development. Yet you
> will use browsers paid for by Google, development tools written by MS,
> chips made by Intel, and so on. If your dreams come true, you will
> gradually be able to replace those companies' products - but until then,
> you use them. So why does Apple deserve a special position in your
> naughty list?
They have a particular spirit about them. And, FWIW, I felt that spirit
even back to the days of the Macintosh. IBM and Microsoft have done bad
things, but there has been a different spirit about them. That changed
with Microsoft in 2007/2008, by the way, with the announcement of Azure.
I don't know what exactly changed in them, but something changed that
very day, and it has persisted since.
It's okay if you don't understand or believe me. I can only point you
to what I know. Because I discern that spirit, I avoid it. And there
is outward evidence of that spirit at work in the way they operate:
Apple has a "I'm proud to be gay" homosexual CEO, and is hoarding billions
while people world-wide starve, and people in this nation go homeless.
Microsoft has been modifying their post-Win 7 operating systems to spy on
every user, even making it quite difficult to turn off that spying. And
on my wife's computer, she rebooted recently and it installed an update
for nearly two hours without asking her. Had she had some need to actually
use her computer in that time, she would've been harmed by that policy.
I don't expect you to understand, believe, or place any value on any of
these discernments of mine, David. I expect you will think it's all some
form of hogwash, some mental issue I possess, etc. And I will not reply
to your response to this post because of it. But, there it is for you to
have knowledge of. And, there's always hope. Perhaps someday it will
make sense to you.
One other point: I've shared these things with many Christians I've
gotten close to over the years, and about 1 in 200 has been able to
discern the same things I am. They have all said the same things, that
there is some kind of spirit at work in people and companies that they
are able to discern, and they avoid it/them for the same reason.
Starbuck's is a good example. There's a reason why it's so popular, and
it's not for the $6 coffee. There is a spirit about that company, and
it is to be avoided for the same reason as Apple.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-23 19:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fupvwe77.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #92614 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > But that does not provide a rational, consistent or logical reason to > avoid a piece of software simply because Apple is involved with its > development Maybe its an Apple from the Tree of Knowledge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 09:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <gohqrbl9n2i5l86876sg6c6di2m7dfqpvv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92583 |
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
>On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 11:09:18 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 22/08/16 16:56, Chad wrote:
>> > On Friday, August 19, 2016 at 2:48:24 PM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> On 08/20/16 09:22 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> >>>> I tried to do this today, and the compiler balked. Is there a syntax
>> >>>> where this idea is legal (line 06 and the [c = "hello"] part)?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 01: void myfunc(int value, char* text)
>> >>>> 02: {
>> >>>> 03: printf("%d %s\n", value, text);
>> >>>> 04: }
>> >>>> 05:
>> >>>> 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c)
>> >>>> 07:
>> >>>> 08: abc(myfunc, 2);
>> >>>
>> >>> If you want C++, you know where to find it!
>> >>
>> >> The irony is that he uses C++ despite posting in c.l.c.
>> >
>> > How did you know that homegirl was using C++?
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean with the "homegirl" reference - perhaps it
>> is some American slang that I don't get.
>
>Yep. It's Chad's derogatory name calling directed at me.
>
>> But we know that Rick programs basically in C, but using a C++ compiler,
>> because he has told us. He believes that full C++ is too complicated a
>> language, but takes advantage of a few C++ features in his basically C
>> programming.
>
>I think it's both too complex and an incredibly messy syntax, though I
>think there are some truly brilliant aspects of its extension of C.
>
>> And his (currently) preferred development environment is
>> MSVC, which has very good C++ support but quite poor C support (maybe
>> that's different now that they are using clang).
>
>Is that true that Microsoft is using clang now? Does that mean that clang
>is an optional compiler? Or that Microsoft is using clang as part of its
>VC++ compilers (as your reply seems to indicate)?
>
>If so, despite its many improvements I shall abandon all new aspects of
>Visual Studio 2015 and later, as I want nothing to do with Apple. Clang's
>logo is a fire breathing dragon, for crying out loud:
>
> http://llvm.org/Logo.html
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern
>
>All of Apple's products are to be avoided. The only reason I've used
>Microsoft's products are because I used them before I was saved, and God
>received me in my stead, and there are several cases where I can remember
>in my pre-salvation days the hand of some (at the time I thought) force
>at work in my life, guiding me, including my original introduction into
>Visual Studio 98, and later 2002 and 2003 (before I was saved in 2004).
>
>It's also the fundamental reason why I'm writing my own compiler, even
>my own complete hardware and software stack, so that I have my own tools
>upon which to build everything, tools founded upon an offering unto the
>Lord Jesus Christ.
>
>[My original attempt at posting failed. I apologize if this posts twice.]
>
>Best regards,
>Rick C. Hodgin
nobody can be sure "to be saved"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 00:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1222f28e-185e-444c-bbb2-ee451883261f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92670 |
On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 08:05:50 UTC+1, Rosario19 wrote: ... > nobody can be sure "to be saved" I can. My processor backs up to the cloud every <reset> What were we talking about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-24 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5027a8ad-2c6c-4f94-811f-67b760d87eb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92670 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 3:05:50 AM UTC-4, Rosario19 wrote:
> nobody can be sure "to be saved"
We can. The born again nature gives us the eyes to see the things our
flesh cannot. It's like a blind person saying that we cannot know how
to cross an unknown room, for you must feel your way to get across, and
you cannot know with certainty the way. But to a person with eyes, a
single glance and the safe path across a room is known.
The born again nature gives people the assurance their flesh cannot
possess. It comes to all people who seek the truth, and ask forgiveness
of their sin from Jesus Christ:
http://biblehub.com/kjv/hebrews/11-1.htm
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen."
Faith gives substance to things hoped for, and evidence of things not
seen (by our eyes).
http://biblehub.com/kjv/2_corinthians/4-18.htm
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things
which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but
the things which are not seen are eternal."
Our flesh-based eyes and flesh-based mind deceive us, for they only see
the things of this world. But the spirit of God living within us gives
us sight and insight unto those things which are eternal, are of God, and
are alive (truth, love, and charity in action).
For all who seek the truth, they will come to Jesus Christ, ask to be
forgiven of their sin, and the will be forgiven, and in that selfsame
instant they will be reborn of the spirit, alive again in eternity,
passing from judgment into life, no longer under condemnation from sin,
but alive forevermore, able to know truth, know the things of God, and
to bear witness to them here in this world as teachers, being servants
and ambassadors of God.
It takes a great deal of effort. And everyone who is saved and pursues
God in this way will tell you that we (as believers) still fail Him almost
continually. Yet, by His Grace we persist, and by His Grace we continue
on. We are unwavering and undaunted by naysayers, but our prayers go out
to all who do not believe that they will come to seek the truth and come
to faith in Jesus Christ, that they too might be saved, and might become
even mightier servants of God than we could ever hope to be.
Our goals are in others outpacing us through zealousness and a true inner
love for God manifested into action in this world, while at the same time
we pray to increase in being zealous in all of our efforts, honing and
forging our way unto Him through a purposefully constructed work over time.
It is a glorious thing to serve the Lord of the universe. And I pray each
of you come to know this ... and sooner rather than later.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-19 22:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <np7vag$936$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92513 |
On 19/08/2016 22:36, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/20/16 09:22 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I tried to do this today, and the compiler balked. Is there a syntax
>> where this idea is legal (line 06 and the [c = "hello"] part)?
>>
>> 01: void myfunc(int value, char* text)
>> 02: {
>> 03: printf("%d %s\n", value, text);
>> 04: }
>> 05:
>> 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c)
>> 07:
>> 08: abc(myfunc, 2);
>
> If you want C++, you know where to find it!
I tried it in C++ and it didn't seem to work.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-20 10:14 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e1peltF2cguU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92516 |
On 08/20/16 09:56 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 19/08/2016 22:36, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 08/20/16 09:22 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> I tried to do this today, and the compiler balked. Is there a syntax
>>> where this idea is legal (line 06 and the [c = "hello"] part)?
>>>
>>> 01: void myfunc(int value, char* text)
>>> 02: {
>>> 03: printf("%d %s\n", value, text);
>>> 04: }
>>> 05:
>>> 06: #define abc(a, b, c = "hello") a(b, c)
>>> 07:
>>> 08: abc(myfunc, 2);
>>
>> If you want C++, you know where to find it!
>
> I tried it in C++ and it didn't seem to work.
In C++, we don't use macros.
A function template like
template <typename Fn, typename B>
void abc( Fn a, B b, const char* c = "hello") { a(b, c); }
would be used.
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web