Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96066 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 03:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-18 20:36 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 03:07 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 13:25 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 05:47 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:03 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 12:10 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:17 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:27 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:19 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:00 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 09:04 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:57 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 05:16 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 06:22 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 06:52 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 07:08 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 07:47 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:13 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:48 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 03:21 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:16 +0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:00 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 08:41 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:50 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 17:10 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 19:06 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Andreas <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 21:43 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 02:35 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-11 10:43 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-17 20:15 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 11:59 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-17 22:27 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-17 22:45 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 14:28 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 00:13 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 15:37 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:29 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 21:59 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 21:14 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 22:38 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 11:26 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-18 08:56 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 08:16 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 11:42 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 13:16 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-18 12:23 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 14:28 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-18 14:24 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-11-18 14:34 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 14:38 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 15:47 +0100
[OT] Linux and Firefox "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 22:50 +0800
Re: Window$ and Firefox "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 22:51 +0800
Re: taskkill "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 22:52 +0800
Re: taskkill David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 16:44 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-18 15:11 +0000
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 23:24 +0800
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 16:41 +0100
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-18 16:45 +0100
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 17:35 +0100
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-11-18 13:10 -0400
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-18 18:29 +0000
Re: Who cares (about Window$)? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-18 11:49 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-18 11:42 -0800
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-19 20:37 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 12:34 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 13:46 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 13:44 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 14:44 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-19 01:16 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-19 15:43 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-19 18:13 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-18 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-18 09:25 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-18 18:15 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 19:18 +0000
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-18 08:20 +0100
Re: Experimental languages/features for C or similar "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 20:36 +0800
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 22:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0nsbr$6rt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96899 |
Le 18/11/2016 à 22:14, Gareth Owen a écrit : > Then you need to express your self in a calmer manner when someone does > disagree with you. Instead, you have a tendency to express the sentiment > that you think Keith has some sort of vendetta against you. Wait, we were talking about the documentation of gcc isn't it? Mr Thompson presented a link with the question Are you suggesting that gcc has no technical documentation? I answered with two detailed answers, where I said in essence that those web pages aren't any technical docs, but mostly BUGs or TO DO items. Documenting gcc is a heavy task, and I do not complain, all that comes from a slight critic of gcc that overwhelms the user with tons of code. Lcc is smaller, but obviously not as sophisticated as gcc. And has a good technical doc in the form of a book, that explains everything very clearly. To that answer, Mr thompson started saying that he did not read the docs, all in caps lock, like shouting. Why do you intervene in a conversation with a document you haven't even read? It is kind of amusing, if you take it at face value. Behind is a defense of gcc at all costs, where there isn't even any fight: lcc will never produce code as fast as gcc. That was not the point. We were talking about lcc's book as an example of good technical doccs. And I still believe is a good example. I did not start anything that I could not prove. The number of bytes/mb of code is quite small really. Two sentences and parsing is done. Well, OK.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 11:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0mkvs$kdp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96783 |
Le 18/11/2016 à 00:37, Keith Thompson a écrit :
> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>> Le 17/11/2016 à 23:28, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>>> Le 17/11/2016 á 20:59, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>>>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> When they make available the whole compiler with commented source code?
>>>>>> This is not just GNU that overwhelms us with megabytes of code where the
>>>>>> only comment is the copyright notice and no technical documentation.
>>>>>> This is a fully commented code in a top down manner, easy to get into.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying gcc has no technical documentation?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/
>>>>>
>>>>> (I make no comment on the quality of the documentation, since I haven't
>>>>> read it.)
>>>>
>>>> If you haven't read it why do you say that that is documentation?
>>>>
>>>> Well obviously you say that because you haven't read it.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Apparently saying "I make no comment on the quality of the
>>> documentation, since I haven't read it" wasn't clear enough.
>>> Let me restate it more clearly for you.
>>>
>>> I MAKE NO COMMENT ON THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION, SINCE I
>>> HAVEN'T READ IT.
>>
>> But you say that those 1256 bytes are "documentation".
>
> What 1256 bytes are you talking about?
The problem with you is that you do not read what other people write.
It is not only the "documentation" of gcc that ypu haven't read.
I explained in my post why that web page can't be classified as
documentation by taking one of the chapters ("Parsing") and counting the
bytes that make the explanation text. If you leave out the BUGS or TO DO
items, that leaves us with 1256 bytes of text.
That is peerfectly clear to anyone that read what I wrote. But you (as
always) just
[snip]
anything substantive from the other guy's posts to leave the caricature
of other people's thoughts.
>I posted a link to the index
> page of a manual containing 25 chapters. Is it not displaying correctly
> for you? I have the equivalent manual on my system as "gccint.info.gz",
> which is 2486404 bytes after decompression.
>
Read my post before complaining dude.
> I am not saying that the size of the documentation has anything to do
> with its quality. I am saying only that it exists. I said so, with an
> appropriate disclaimer. Anyone is free to follow the link and reach
> their own conclusions.
>
Yes, and I reached my own. But (as always) you are unable to bring
anyrthing substantive to the discussion and limit yourself to pointing
to documents you haven't even READ.
My counsel is that you should READ the links you send before posting
them here.
> If you're saying that it's of such low quality that it shouldn't even be
> called "documentation", I won't argue with you.
OK. Then we agree.
>
> As usual, I have no idea why you have a problem with me.
>
Yeah. To see the problem you should reflect about how do you participate
here, but I am afraid that is way beyond what you are able to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 08:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnfumog204.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96800 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 18/11/2016 à 00:37, Keith Thompson a écrit :
[snip]
>> If you're saying that it's of such low quality that it shouldn't even be
>> called "documentation", I won't argue with you.
>
> OK. Then we agree.
No. I said I won't argue with you, not that I agree with you.
>> As usual, I have no idea why you have a problem with me.
>
> Yeah. To see the problem you should reflect about how do you
> participate here, but I am afraid that is way beyond what you are able
> to do.
jacob, I would like to discuss this with you privately. Expect a reply
in your e-mail.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 08:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0m9qk$ihv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96781 |
On 18/11/16 00:13, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 17/11/2016 à 23:28, Keith Thompson a écrit : >> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >>> Le 17/11/2016 á 20:59, Keith Thompson a écrit : >>>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> When they make available the whole compiler with commented source >>>>> code? >>>>> This is not just GNU that overwhelms us with megabytes of code >>>>> where the >>>>> only comment is the copyright notice and no technical documentation. >>>>> This is a fully commented code in a top down manner, easy to get into. >>>> >>>> Are you saying gcc has no technical documentation? >>>> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/ >>>> >>>> (I make no comment on the quality of the documentation, since I haven't >>>> read it.) >>> >>> If you haven't read it why do you say that that is documentation? >>> >>> Well obviously you say that because you haven't read it. >> >> [snip] >> >> Apparently saying "I make no comment on the quality of the >> documentation, since I haven't read it" wasn't clear enough. >> Let me restate it more clearly for you. >> >> I MAKE NO COMMENT ON THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENTATION, SINCE I >> HAVEN'T READ IT. >> > > But you say that those 1256 bytes are "documentation". > > Without reading it. Just because you are you of course. And > can't be contradicted by anyone and starts shouting when you ran out of > arguments since you do not know what you are talking about: > > You haven't even READ the document you cite! > > I am saying that those bytes are just not by any means part of any > documentation, i.e. explaining in a human readable form the workings of > the code its trying to document. > > You pointed to that link in the context where I just said that gcc > overwhelms the reader with tons of code with absolutely no technical > documentatiobn, so you IMPLIED that that link was a documentation! > > And no amount of shouting will hide that from anyone. > > The book of Chris Fraser and Dave Hanson *IS* a full technical > documentation. Just see the difference and when you do not know what you > are talking about keep your mouth shut. > You do know that there is a difference between documentation of a program, and writing a book? A don't think anyone at gcc intended to write a "how to write a compiler" book - it is just some documentation (a great deal more than 1256 bytes) about the gcc internals, like it says. It also helpfully gives links: <https://gcc.gnu.org/readings.html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 11:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0mlti$mr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96787 |
Le 18/11/2016 à 08:16, David Brown a écrit : > You do know that there is a difference between documentation of a > program, and writing a book? Yes, but I have read technical documentation of big programs and to write just 1256 bytes of text to comment several megabytes of very complex code is just ridiculous. Why this discussion? Because I wrote a very slight critique of gcc saying that there is no technical documentation. To that, thompson immediately answered pointing me to something he called "documentation" and you go on in that same vein. The gcc fan club here is at full speed. No critic should be allowed of gcc, gnu, or similar (linux included) It doesn't matter that linux crashes regularly when I start VLC, that I have to reboot (like in the old windows days) each 2 or three days because the screen saver fucks up the display and all the screen is completely garbled after the machine wakes up. It doesn't matter thgat gcc is gone to absolutely crazy dimensions without the hint of a technical description. Gcc 4.9 has 916 340 lines and 27 131 389 bytes of code! (not counting the .def and similar auxiliary files) I wrote the C containers library and an EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION of all the specs and code that I published. Look at the PDF file and you will see what I consider a technical documentation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 13:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0mrda$art$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96801 |
On 18/11/16 11:42, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 18/11/2016 à 08:16, David Brown a écrit : >> You do know that there is a difference between documentation of a >> program, and writing a book? > > Yes, but I have read technical documentation of big programs and to > write just 1256 bytes of text to comment several megabytes of very > complex code is just ridiculous. > > Why this discussion? > > Because I wrote a very slight critique of gcc saying that there is no > technical documentation. > When you write that gcc has no technical documentation, you are simply incorrect. There is no question about it - you are wrong. When you try to make it look like the sole documentation and information for megabytes of code is 1256 bytes of text, you are completely wrong - and insultingly wrong. If you want to say that the technical documentation of gcc is not as good as you would like, then that's fine. If you say it is not as complete as could reasonably be expected for a large and complex project, then you would be correct - and you would find that most gcc developers would agree with you. If you want to say that the terse and sparse documentation for many parts of the gcc code are not good as a tutorial or reference book on how to write compilers, then you are of course correct - but pointlessly so, because the gcc documentation referred to here is not intended to be a tutorial. It is to be an aid to people working on the code. > To that, thompson immediately answered pointing me to something he > called "documentation" and you go on in that same vein. It /is/ documentation. But the particular section you looked at is not very good or complete documentation of that part of the code. Other parts of the code are far better documented. > > The gcc fan club here is at full speed. No critic should be allowed of > gcc, gnu, or similar (linux included) And the paranoia is out at full speed again - anyone who does not agree with /your/ prejudices, your ideas (some of which are good, some not) and your hopes (most of which are unrealistic), is clearly on a mission to harm you. You have a pathological hatred for GNU, gcc and Linux. I don't understand why, but your seem to feel that both developers and users there are motivated purely by a determination to hinder your Windows-only closed-source compiler. And therefore you think that anyone who disagrees with you is part of this global conspiracy. I use gcc for most of my C work, because it is the best compiler for me and my requirements. I use Linux for most of my development work (and personal usage), because it is the best choice for me. I am quite happy to discuss fair and reasonable criticism of these tools, and can think of many points where they could be improved or where alternatives do better. But remember, in this thread branch there was a little discussion about a book on compiler design. /You/ are the one who decided to bring gcc and GNU into it, make wildly exaggerated claims, and compare a compiler to a book about compilers. > > It doesn't matter that linux crashes regularly when I start VLC, You are correct. It does not matter. It has no bearing whatsoever on C, programming, gcc, Linux, whatever. It just means that you have a problem with a program on your computer - one that millions of others (including me) run fine on /their/ Linux systems. Nor does it matter that there are situations when my Windows computer has crashed, nor situations when my Linux computer has crashed. > that I > have to reboot (like in the old windows days) each 2 or three days > because the screen saver fucks up the display and all the screen is > completely garbled after the machine wakes up. Again, it does not matter. Nor does it matter that I have my Windows machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. > > It doesn't matter thgat gcc is gone to absolutely crazy dimensions > without the hint of a technical description. Gcc 4.9 has 916 340 lines > and 27 131 389 bytes of code! (not counting the .def and similar > auxiliary files) No, it does not matter that the gcc project has grown in size of source code. It has grown enormously in scope and features - far more than any other compiler project (considering the MSVC++ compiler independently from the IDE and other tools). And minimising the size of the source has never been an object for the gcc developers, because it is irrelevant for most purposes. In fact, the only use of sizes seems to be in order to claim how much "better" a little windows-only windows-specific C-only compiler is. But just for fun, I have had a quick look at where all those megabytes of files are inside gcc 4.9 (since I have that version conveniently unpacked on my system). Most of the code is within the "gcc" directory. Within that directory, there is a solid amount of common code (some 25 MB), and then some subdirectories. The "c" directory has 1.4 MB, the "cp" has 8.8 MB, "fortran" has 7.7 MB, "ada" has 53 MB. You do realise that gcc is not a C compiler, but a "compiler collection" supporting a range of languages? There are 44 MB of translation files - gcc supports 19 languages, if I have counted correctly. Oh, and there is 14 MB in the "doc" directory - slightly more than your estimate of 1256 bytes. And about have the weight - some 201 MB - is the testsuite. All in all, it does not sound that excessive to me. It is a massive project, with vast arrays of features, and it takes a good deal of space to cover it all. > > I wrote the C containers library and an EXTENSIVE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION > of all the specs and code that I published. Look at the PDF file and you > will see what I consider a technical documentation. > The CCL documentation (I recommend you use the hyperref package when generating the pdf - it will give the pdf a proper table of contents and clickable links. Other than that, the document looks very impressive) is a mixture of a tutorial on CCL and a reference for how to use the library. gcc does not come with a reference on the programming languages it implements (the ISO standards, or their drafts, are available elsewhere), nor is it a tutorial on C programming. The nearest appropriate comparison to your CCL documentation would be the user manuals for gcc. At some 800 pages or so for the main manual, it is quite extensive - though it could be better in many areas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0mrrd$bqu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96808 |
On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: > [...] I have my Windows > machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they > both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you have one hell of a magic wand. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 14:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0mvl0$pl9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96809 |
On 18/11/16 13:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: >> [...] I have my Windows >> machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they >> both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. > > I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you > have one hell of a magic wand. > > I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0n2t2$53i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96818 |
On 18/11/16 13:28, David Brown wrote: > On 18/11/16 13:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: >>> [...] I have my Windows >>> machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they >>> both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. >> >> I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you >> have one hell of a magic wand. >> >> > > I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have > on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two > or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with > a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). > > But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer. It does, sometimes (at least for me). If I fail to spot in time that Firefox's memory and CPU usage are increasing exponentially, the whole machine freezes, and there's nothing for it but to hold down the power button for a while. Am I the only one who has this problem? And is there an active newsgroup where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a solution? -- 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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <582f1126.2474437@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #96827 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 18/11/16 13:28, David Brown wrote: > > I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have > > on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two > > or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with > > a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). > > > > But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer. > > It does, sometimes (at least for me). If I fail to spot in time that > Firefox's memory and CPU usage are increasing exponentially, the whole > machine freezes, and there's nothing for it but to hold down the power > button for a while. > > Am I the only one who has this problem? And is there an active newsgroup > where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a solution? I've only had that problem with Chrome. Man, I hate Chrome. But no, I suspect you'll have to resort to a web forum, and get fobbed off. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 14:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0n3mp$983$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96827 |
On 18/11/2016 14:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/11/16 13:28, David Brown wrote: >> On 18/11/16 13:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: >>>> [...] I have my Windows >>>> machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they >>>> both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. >>> >>> I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you >>> have one hell of a magic wand. >>> >>> >> >> I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have >> on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two >> or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with >> a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). >> >> But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer. > > It does, sometimes (at least for me). If I fail to spot in time that > Firefox's memory and CPU usage are increasing exponentially, the whole > machine freezes, and there's nothing for it but to hold down the power > button for a while. > > Am I the only one who has this problem? No. I often have to do a hard power-off, but don't know if it's Firefox, or a plug-in, or anything else. (Usually under Windows but that's probably because I use that most often.) (Firefox does have this annoying habit that if it crashes or hangs due to some page content, and you have to restart, then it will try restore the exact same page that caused the problem in the first place!) > And is there an active newsgroup > where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a solution? I believe Firefox is open source so perhaps you can just find the problem yourself! -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 14:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87mvgw6efn.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96827 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > Am I the only one who has this problem? And is there an active > newsgroup where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a > solution? I run Firefox and Firefox Nightly on linux, but my usage pattern is I tend to stop and start sessions pretty regularly, and rarely have more than a dozen tabs open. I've never had those symptoms, but I'd guess my usage pattern is pretty conducive to avoiding that. The XFCE thumbnailer does this to me semi-frequently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0n49p$bd5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96827 |
On 18/11/16 15:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/11/16 13:28, David Brown wrote: >> On 18/11/16 13:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: >>>> [...] I have my Windows >>>> machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they >>>> both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. >>> >>> I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you >>> have one hell of a magic wand. >>> >>> >> >> I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have >> on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two >> or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with >> a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). >> >> But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer. > > It does, sometimes (at least for me). If I fail to spot in time that > Firefox's memory and CPU usage are increasing exponentially, the whole > machine freezes, and there's nothing for it but to hold down the power > button for a while. > > Am I the only one who has this problem? And is there an active newsgroup > where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a solution? > If Firefox has leaked too much on Linux, it usually means things start to end up on swap. That can sometimes cause a lot of slowdown (but often the memory on swap is the "lost" memory, and that is of little problem. But eventually yes, too much lost memory leads to needing a restart. In theory, the Linux kernel might still be running and the out-of-memory-killer can handle it, but when cpu hogs and swap slow down the system enough, then it is effectively dead. If you are leaving the computer on but not in use, you can always pause the firefox process, then continue it when you are on the machine again. You could even arrange to do so automatically as a "screen saver". killall -s STOP firefox killall -s CONT firefox I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what it might be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 22:50 +0800 |
| Subject | [OT] Linux and Firefox |
| Message-ID | <o0n4e4$b7j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96834 |
Off-topic!!! Off-topic, Masters! Change the subject voluntarily to reflect it! :) On 18/11/2016 10:47 PM, David Brown wrote: > > If Firefox has leaked too much on Linux, it usually means things start > to end up on swap. That can sometimes cause a lot of slowdown (but > often the memory on swap is the "lost" memory, and that is of little > problem. But eventually yes, too much lost memory leads to needing a > restart. In theory, the Linux kernel might still be running and the > out-of-memory-killer can handle it, but when cpu hogs and swap slow down > the system enough, then it is effectively dead. > > If you are leaving the computer on but not in use, you can always pause > the firefox process, then continue it when you are on the machine again. > You could even arrange to do so automatically as a "screen saver". > > killall -s STOP firefox > killall -s CONT firefox > > I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what > it might be. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 22:51 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Window$ and Firefox |
| Message-ID | <o0n4g2$b7j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96834 |
On 18/11/2016 10:47 PM, David Brown wrote: > > killall -s STOP firefox > killall -s CONT firefox > > I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what > it might be. taskill (available since Win 7???) You can always Task Manager, Master!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 22:52 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: taskkill |
| Message-ID | <o0n4hg$b7j$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96836 |
On 18/11/2016 10:51 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 18/11/2016 10:47 PM, David Brown wrote: >> >> killall -s STOP firefox >> killall -s CONT firefox >> >> I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what >> it might be. > > taskill (available since Win 7???) taskkill (typo) taskkill /? for help
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 16:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: taskkill |
| Message-ID | <o0n7iv$n08$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96837 |
On 18/11/16 15:52, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 18/11/2016 10:51 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> On 18/11/2016 10:47 PM, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> killall -s STOP firefox >>> killall -s CONT firefox >>> >>> I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what >>> it might be. >> >> taskill (available since Win 7???) > > taskkill (typo) > taskkill /? for help > That does not do the same thing. "taskkill" on Windows will do what it says - kill tasks. But on Linux, as with all *nix systems, "kill" can do far more than just "killing" tasks. The STOP signal pauses the task, and the CONT signal unpauses it. I seem to remember reading that there is an equivalent feature in Windows, but it is hidden from normal user interfaces.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0n5mv$fu7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96834 |
On 18/11/16 14:47, David Brown wrote: > On 18/11/16 15:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 18/11/16 13:28, David Brown wrote: >>> On 18/11/16 13:23, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 18/11/16 12:16, David Brown wrote: >>>>> [...] I have my Windows >>>>> machine and my Linux machine running continuously at my office - they >>>>> both have average uptimes of a couple of months or so. >>>> >>>> I guess, then, that you don't run Firefox on them. Either that, or you >>>> have one hell of a magic wand. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I restart Firefox on occasion, on both machines (the old version I have >>> on my Linux machine has a memory leak, so it needs restarted every two >>> or three days. Either that, or I should tidy up the dozen windows with >>> a total of perhaps 50 or 60 tabs that are open all the time). >>> >>> But restarting Firefox does not mean restarting the computer. >> >> It does, sometimes (at least for me). If I fail to spot in time that >> Firefox's memory and CPU usage are increasing exponentially, the whole >> machine freezes, and there's nothing for it but to hold down the power >> button for a while. >> >> Am I the only one who has this problem? And is there an active newsgroup >> where the subject is topical and likely to lead to a solution? >> > > If Firefox has leaked too much on Linux, it usually means things start > to end up on swap. That can sometimes cause a lot of slowdown (but > often the memory on swap is the "lost" memory, and that is of little > problem. But eventually yes, too much lost memory leads to needing a > restart. In theory, the Linux kernel might still be running and the > out-of-memory-killer can handle it, but when cpu hogs and swap slow down > the system enough, then it is effectively dead. > > If you are leaving the computer on but not in use, you can always pause > the firefox process, then continue it when you are on the machine again. > You could even arrange to do so automatically as a "screen saver". > > killall -s STOP firefox > killall -s CONT firefox Thank you. I will investigate this further. > I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what > it might be. <shrug> Who cares? :-) -- 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 | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 23:24 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Who cares (about Window$)? |
| Message-ID | <o0n6ea$icg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96840 |
On 18/11/2016 11:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what >> it might be. > > <shrug> Who cares? :-) You masters don't use Window$? I am amazed! You masters don't play DirectX games? Most of them were written in C if not C++, I believe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 16:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Who cares (about Window$)? |
| Message-ID | <o0n7ep$n08$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96843 |
On 18/11/16 16:24, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 18/11/2016 11:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> I expect there is a way to do this on Windows too, but I don't know what >>> it might be. >> >> <shrug> Who cares? :-) > > You masters don't use Window$? I am amazed! > You masters don't play DirectX games? Most of them were written in C if > not C++, I believe. > We are not "masters". Most people in this group are people who program in C, or used to program in C, or are otherwise interested in C programming. If anyone thinks they have fully "mastered" C programming, they are wrong - despite having perhaps 30+ years of experience. I am sure that some people here play games on Windows. I know some people here are interested in writing games on Windows - though I think few games are written in C these days. But personally, I don't play games on Windows because I only have a Windows machine for work (alongside a Linux machine that I use most of the time). At home I have Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web