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 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <538a33a1-e0d2-4db7-afda-9f5a462e5758@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96304 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-2, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/11/16 12:18, BartC wrote: > > (Anyway I've > > no idea what a web server does > > At a high level: a Web server listens on a socket for page requests from > Web clients (typically known as browsers). When a page request comes in, > the Web server tries to find the page on the the local disk. If it finds > that page, it sends it over the socket to the client (browser) that > requested it. > > To write a primitive Web server is not difficult. If you know how to > listen on a socket, read data from a socket, and write data to a socket, > the rest is little more than observing the HTTP protocol, which is a > text protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230 is a good place to > start. It really isn't that hard. If you can design and implement your > own non-trivial language, writing a basic Web server is like a stroll in > the park after Sunday dinner. > > > or how you would go about measuring its speed. > > That's easy. How fast is your network? That's roughly how fast your Web > server will be. This program can be used to test http webservers. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/programs/ab.html You can see how your server respond when I was hit by several asynchronous calls, with different setting like keep alive. If it does bad in your network it will go bad online too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o026k8$pi3$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96304 |
On 2016-11-10, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 10/11/16 12:18, BartC wrote: >> (Anyway I've >> no idea what a web server does > > At a high level: a Web server listens on a socket for page requests from > Web clients (typically known as browsers). When a page request comes in, > the Web server tries to find the page on the the local disk. If it finds > that page, it sends it over the socket to the client (browser) that > requested it. > > To write a primitive Web server is not difficult. If you know how to > listen on a socket, read data from a socket, and write data to a socket, > the rest is little more than observing the HTTP protocol, which is a > text protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230 is a good place to > start. It really isn't that hard. If you can design and implement your > own non-trivial language, writing a basic Web server is like a stroll in > the park after Sunday dinner. > >> or how you would go about measuring its speed. > > That's easy. How fast is your network? That's roughly how fast your Web > server will be. You can measure on same machine. Eg python server is 300 reqs per second, Haskell happstack server is 3k reqs/sec, Golang server is 44k requests per second and rwasa (assembler web server) is 55k reqs/sec... Theoretical limit for this machine is around 60k requests per second. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0032v$ogu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96222 |
On 09/11/16 20:35, David Brown wrote: <snip> > This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people > that think that C is the answer to every programming issue. In fact, possibly only one. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o00704$7ng$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96224 |
Le 09/11/2016 à 22:06, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > On 09/11/16 20:35, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > >> This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people >> that think that C is the answer to every programming issue. > > In fact, possibly only one. > At least this one. You were referring to me? Yes, I am very much laughed at when I repeat that simpler languages are better than complicated ones. I have programmed in many languages, one of them, APL, much more beautiful than C. I am not campaigning but just telling a fact: Simpler languages are easier to analyze and to understand for a naked brain. A naked brain is our circuit and its capacity of following language specs. If the circuit of the c++ creator was unable after some years of effort, to add argument type checking into c++, that means that the complexity of his creation is beyond his means. And I can safely assume that his c++ knowledge goes WAY beyond mine... Each c++ programmer has a small subset of the whole language, and he/she uses that subset. Only the compiler writers care about the consistency of all those details, for the unexpected use cases that they find. But the universe of the use cases in c++ must be quite huge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o007am$8lt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96240 |
On 09/11/16 22:12, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 22:06, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> On 09/11/16 20:35, David Brown wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people >>> that think that C is the answer to every programming issue. >> >> In fact, possibly only one. >> > > At least this one. You were referring to me? Oh. Make that two, then. > Yes, I am very much laughed at when I repeat that simpler languages are > better than complicated ones. Not by me. You and I have had many differences over the years, but that isn't one of them. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96130a78-53a1-4ddb-b5d7-9bf1dd336e1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96240 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 4:12:57 PM UTC-6, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 22:06, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > > On 09/11/16 20:35, David Brown wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people > >> that think that C is the answer to every programming issue. > > > > In fact, possibly only one. > > > > At least this one. You were referring to me? > > Yes, I am very much laughed at when I repeat that simpler languages are > better than complicated ones. > > I have programmed in many languages, one of them, APL, much more > beautiful than C. I am not campaigning but just telling a fact: > > Simpler languages are easier to analyze and to understand for a naked brain. > > A naked brain is our circuit and its capacity of following language > specs. If the circuit of the c++ creator was unable after some years of > effort, to add argument type checking into c++, that means that the > complexity of his creation is beyond his means. > > And I can safely assume that his c++ knowledge goes WAY beyond mine... > > Each c++ programmer has a small subset of the whole language, and he/she > uses that subset. > > Only the compiler writers care about the consistency of all those > details, for the unexpected use cases that they find. But the universe > of the use cases in c++ must be quite huge. I kind of agree with everything Jacob says here. The point isn't that you should write everything in C, but that you /can/. It's a challenge, a skill, a mindset. If all you know is higher-level languages with associative arrays, then it can be a very mind-broadening experience to learn how to achieve the same tasks with a more meagre toolset. When I discovered that I could achieve a limited form of associative array with a regular array and an enum, it was a thrilling emotion I wish I could share. It make be too hard to do in C, but the failures are ... what's the word? ... educative? ick. instructive! there it is. Why take the motorcycle instead of the RV? The RV has the coffee-maker in it!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01o28$mgs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96240 |
On 09/11/16 23:12, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 22:06, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> On 09/11/16 20:35, David Brown wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> This group has a lot of people who program C. But it has few people >>> that think that C is the answer to every programming issue. >> >> In fact, possibly only one. >> > > At least this one. You were referring to me? > > Yes, I am very much laughed at when I repeat that simpler languages are > better than complicated ones. > You often complain about how people "laugh at you" - but I don't see it in this group. The C standards people did not want to use your CLC library - but that was not laughing at you either. You should cut down a bit on the paranoia. And I would say that with all else being equal, simplicity is better than complexity in most circumstances - including programming languages. But often in programming, all else is /not/ equal. So different programming languages are better suited to different tasks. It is that simple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o004cm$tr5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96222 |
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. >> - Anything that runs on cloud server >> - protocols http (e-mail etc , SSL) >> - graphics cairo >> - git >> - industry equipment protocol >> - Anything runs on IOT devices >> > > On very resource constrained systems, then C may be the only choice > rather than C++. And other considerations, such as developer > familiarity and experience with the language and tool quality may also > be relevant. But other than that, anything that could be written in C > could also be written in C++. Well, anything that could be expressed in ASCII would also be a UTF8 encoding of Unicode. But now imagine all the vast machinery necessary to be able to deal properly with Unicode even though you're only interested in ASCII. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o004l1$gj5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96230 |
On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also > find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. > > Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. > Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87lgwrzvqt.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96231 |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > On 2016-11-09, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >> But how the hell do you do it with a std::string instead? You will also >> find the function name you want to call has been 'decorated'. >> >> Actually, I think there are problems even between different C++ compilers. >> > Lack of standardized C++ ABI is what makes C prefered choice for writing > interfaces for libraries that are callable from any language... This is idiotic. C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library interface as you would in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o016gg$ehm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96258 |
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. -- 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 20:32 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <e8im52Fl834U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #96263 |
On 11/10/16 08:10 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > 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. Nonsense, C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library interface as you would in C: a C interface. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o019oa$73i$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96265 |
On 2016-11-10, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11/10/16 08:10 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> 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. > > Nonsense, C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library > interface as you would in C: a C interface. > That is what I am saying ;) -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87lgwrdaiu.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96268 |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > On 2016-11-10, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/10/16 08:10 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Nonsense, C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >> interface as you would in C: a C interface. >> > > That is what I am saying ;) Yes, but it was also what I was saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01a9f$73i$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96269 |
On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> writes: > >> On 2016-11-10, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/10/16 08:10 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Nonsense, C++ makes it trivial to expose exactly the same library >>> interface as you would in C: a C interface. >>> >> >> That is what I am saying ;) > > Yes, but it was also what I was saying. Question is: What's advantage of C++ in this case? -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87shqz7n08.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96271 |
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01e40$20c$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96272 |
On 2016-11-10, Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> 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.
Ok, I understand that, but for what price? You have to link with C++
runtime and add lot of bloatware with it...
How many C++ libraries are there with C interface?
Take for example Qt (C++) and Gtk+(C) . In order to make wrapper for Qt one have to do
C++ wrapper for wrapper , while with Gtk it is straightforward. No wonder
there are much more wrappers for Gtk, then for Qt.
Today as it is C is only language viable for writing cross-language
libraries.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e42e5cfc-b260-4924-bf01-cefbad271d7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96273 |
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. Exactly the same size. gowen@ichiro:src$ ldd sortc sortcpp sortc: linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007ffd5ddd7000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fa1940f0000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fa1944b5000) sortcpp: linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff7374f000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fcf64503000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fcf648c8000) Oh, the bloat. For what its worth, as qsort cannot inline the comparator, here are the timings for sorting an array with 10,000,000 elements. sortc: 2.5s sortcpp: 1.4s Of course, I could make the C version faster by implementing my own sort but.... well you asked what the benefit was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01i74$20c$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #96277 |
On 2016-11-10, gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 9:20:09 AM UTC, Melzzzzz wrote: > eadable if I did it with C11 threads. >> >> Ok, I understand that, but for what price? You have to link with C++ >> runtime and add lot of bloatware with it... > > I just wrote a version of my sort code for C, and a version of C++. > Here are the results: > > sortc: 6256 bytes > sortcpp: 6256 bytes. > > Exactly the same size. > > gowen@ichiro:src$ ldd sortc sortcpp > sortc: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007ffd5ddd7000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fa1940f0000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fa1944b5000) > sortcpp: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff7374f000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fcf64503000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fcf648c8000) > > Oh, the bloat. > > For what its worth, as qsort cannot inline the comparator, here are the timings for sorting an array with 10,000,000 elements. And how you pass C++ template argument to C function? > sortc: 2.5s > sortcpp: 1.4s > > Of course, I could make the C version faster by implementing my own sort but.... well you asked what the benefit was. What, you have showed that C++ templates are faster then C generic functions and you don't have to link this time with C++ runtime? Yes, clearly, in this particular case when comparing inlined code with call to generic function you got point. But size in this case is not same, for sure. It's just that compiler generates same number of bytes for object files, while in memory , inlined code have to consume more... -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <362fc76e-f4aa-4c66-abfd-ea4e8d87da47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96279 |
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 10:30:04 AM UTC, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2016-11-10, gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> > Exactly the same size.
> >
> > gowen@ichiro:src$ ldd sortc sortcpp
> > sortc:
> > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007ffd5ddd7000)
> > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fa1940f0000)
> > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fa1944b5000)
> > sortcpp:
> > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x00007fff7374f000)
> > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x00007fcf64503000)
> > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007fcf648c8000)
> >
> > Oh, the bloat.
> >
> > For what its worth, as qsort cannot inline the comparator, here are the timings for sorting an array with 10,000,000 elements.
>
> And how you pass C++ template argument to C function?
I can't. C doesn't support generics. So I write a non-generic C++ function that calls the generic from the library. I have to write a one C function for sorting doubles, one for sorting ints, etc. As in my original post.
extern "C" void sort_array(double arr[],int n)
{
std::array(arr,arr+n);
}
> What, you have showed that C++ templates are faster then C generic functions and you don't have to link this time with C++ runtime?
Yes. So, the literal opposite of what you said.
> But size in this case is not same, for sure.
Yes, it is.
> It's just that compiler
> generates same number of bytes for object files, while in memory , inlined
> code have to consume more...
This is just wrong. One copy of an inlined function is the same size as a non inlined function. And my C++ compiled object file with C linkage contains exactly one copy of the inlined function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web