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 | 16 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 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o008mh$d8u$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #96220 |
On 11/9/2016 3:27 PM, John Bode wrote: > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 7:05:04 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/8/2016 5:57 PM, John Bode wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-6, jacobnavia wrote: >>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit : >>>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!? >>>> >>>> Their opinion is more "subtle" than that. >>>> >>>> C should not be used for new developments and the task of the committee >>>> is to guarantee that the legacy code that has been written in C still runs >>>> >>>> Nothing else. >>>> >>> >>> Then how in the *hell* do they explain adding the damned threading library >>> and changing the language of the standard to accomodate it? That was a >>> *major* enhancement for just supporting legacy code. >>> >>> I mean, I can understand the sentiment of not using C for new, mission- >>> critical systems. The cyberattacks of the last couple of decades have >>> pretty much proven that it is *hard*, if not impossible, to deploy >>> secure C code. And to pre-empt the inevitable "it's not the language, >>> it's the programmers" response - if the human is the *strong* link in your >>> chain, then you are well and truly screwed. Yes, the problem is the >>> language, not the people writing it. >>> >>> But by that same token, if they're going to add a goddamned threading >>> library to the language (that I *don't* remember a great hue and cry for), >>> then they must expect C to be used for new development going forward. >>> >>> Is it just that they don't want to deal with generics? >>> >> >> It's no harder to deploy secure C code than it is in any other language. >> Security is not an attribute of the language; it is the competence of >> the programmer. >> > > To repeat myself - if the human is the strong link in the chain, you are > screwed. Even expert programmers make mistakes. > > And as far as competence goes, C programmers (and programmers in general) > fall on the bell curve just like everyone else. Most are average, a few > are excellent, a few...should be doing something else for a living. You > have to account for the average case. > Which is true for many languages - although a few seem to have the "average" bar much lower than others. >> I know a lot of good programmers who write secure C code. I also know a >> lot of programmers who write insecure code - in C as well as other >> languages. >> >> Competent programmers can write secure code in *any* language they are >> proficient in. Incompetent programmers can't write secure code in any >> language. But they blame the language for their failings. >> > > My point is that it's easier, by a long shot, to write insecure code in C > than most other languages. > I'd disagree to a point there, also. I've seen insecure code in many languages - especially web-based ones like PHP, Pyhon, VBasic and others. And more often from there from "average programmers" than in C. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01qso$vlb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96245 |
On 09/11/16 23:41, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/9/2016 3:27 PM, John Bode wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 7:05:04 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I know a lot of good programmers who write secure C code. I also know a >>> lot of programmers who write insecure code - in C as well as other >>> languages. >>> >>> Competent programmers can write secure code in *any* language they are >>> proficient in. Incompetent programmers can't write secure code in any >>> language. But they blame the language for their failings. >>> >> >> My point is that it's easier, by a long shot, to write insecure code in C >> than most other languages. >> > > I'd disagree to a point there, also. I've seen insecure code in many > languages - especially web-based ones like PHP, Pyhon, VBasic and > others. And more often from there from "average programmers" than in C. > PHP and other web-based code is usually in a position where security is important. For a good deal of C code, security is not a concern - things like buffer overflows are "normal" bugs, not security issues. This makes insecure code in PHP much more visible than insecure code in most C code. You are certainly right that insecure code can be written in any language, and the main part of the blame must fall on programmers who don't know how to deal with security in the language they are using and the type of code they are developing. (Or you can blame their managers who haven't trained them or supervised them properly.) But once you are dealing with at least reasonably competent programmers, the tools provided by a language can make a big difference - because even good programmers make mistakes sometimes. If the language makes it hard to have buffer overflows or memory leaks, then it is very unlikely that a programmer bug will cause security problems of that sort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8432caa5-e764-4b55-ab9c-b485921a7c48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96158 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 4:58:03 PM UTC-6, John Bode wrote: > I mean, I can understand the sentiment of not using C for new, mission- > critical systems. The cyberattacks of the last couple of decades have > pretty much proven that it is *hard*, if not impossible, to deploy > secure C code. And to pre-empt the inevitable "it's not the language, > it's the programmers" response - if the human is the *strong* link in your > chain, then you are well and truly screwed. Yes, the problem is the > language, not the people writing it. How much better for such things is assembly language than the low-level meta-language (relationship between hardware platforms and languages) Dennis Ritchie designed? If a compiler for a single-core machine treats all volatile accesses as being full memory and causality barriers, and hardware interlocks require the CPU to perform certain actions in sequence before activating potentially-dangerous equipment, I would think that it should think code written using such a compiler could in most cases be essentially as robust as anything written using assembly-language, except in cases where the "assembly-language" programmer is taking an extreme level of control over the bit-level output (e.g. checking what would happen if a random jump landed on the second word of a two-word instruction). C may be dead for the kinds of programming the people on the Committee are interested in, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right language for the kinds of programming the people on the Committee have been ignoring for way too long.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <483548ff-2032-4e1f-b663-f794ba1be6b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96150 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-6, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
> Their opinion is more "subtle" than that.
>
> C should not be used for new developments and the task of the committee
> is to guarantee that the legacy code that has been written in C still runs
>
> Nothing else.
If that is actually their attitude, the behavior of the Committee is
downright irrational. If there is disagreement about whether a certain
construct should have defined behavior, but everyone recognizes that:
1. While some code might be prepared to accept multiple possible
behaviors, there is one behavior which all code would be prepared
to accept.
2. There exists code for many platforms which relies upon that behavior.
those two facts should justify a recognition of the behavior and--at
minimum--a means by which code can ask the compiler whether or not it is
supported. Given that any level of performance that could be obtained in
the absence of a behavioral mandate could be obtained using non-conforming
optimization settings, I would think a committee that is genuinely
interested in preserving legacy code should strive to recognize concepts
that are used therein and, *at minimum*, require that compilers that don't
support such construct pre-define macros that indicate such lack of support.
If one does that, then all that would need to be done to existing code to
ensure that it won't unexpectedly jump the rails at runtime because a newer
platform doesn't always uphold the same guarantees as the old one would be
to incorporate tests like the following into a project-wide include file.
#if defined(__STDC_ALIASING_MODEL) && __STDC_ALIASING_MODEL < 2
#error This code uses aliasing in ways this implementation, as\
configured, does not support.
#endif
Such constructs would not affect generated code at all when code is run
on the implementations for which it is presently targeted, but if it's
necessary to migrate code to new targets such directives could ensure
that lack of aliasing support will not cause the program to jump the rails
since every implementation would be required to, at its leisure, either
process the constructs used by the code in defined fashion or else refuse
compilation altogether; in neither case would those constructs invoke UB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c4f3fbd9-ee74-4b4a-a678-f84ef4fb8b22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96147 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 4:08:06 PM UTC-6, jacobnavia wrote: > I wrote the C containers library, and spent 5 000 dollars to propose it > at the C committee. Most members of the C committee said that we should > use C++. Actually one person present said that all C code will be > compiled as C++ in his company. > > I lost the bucks and the C committee refused to accept even the > possibility of doing a containers library in C. We should all write c++ now. Perhaps what's needed is for some people to do an end-run around the Committee and come up with some alternative named standard which implementations could promise to support.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtjid$b23$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96149 |
Le 08/11/2016 à 23:21, supercat@casperkitty.com a écrit : > Perhaps what's needed is for some people to do an end-run around the Committee > and come up with some alternative named standard which implementations could > promise to support. It would be nice to support the CCL though, within the context of an international standard. The C committee took years of discussions to drop gets(); I am tired, really. No more time nor budget to go on fighting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zil97fnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #96120 |
Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> writes: > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:48:41 PM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > >> I really doubt that anyone who understands what they are doing would use >> C for writing a compiler these days - unless it was just for fun. > > > What is the problem? > What is the alternative? C++ ? One very interesting alternative (if the language is suitable) is the language you are writing the compiler for. Not only do you get a very portable language, you get lots of practise writing a significant bit of code in the new design. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o01fv6$qn5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96119 |
On 08/11/16 19:48, David Brown wrote: > On 08/11/16 15:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> On 8/11/2016 10:25 PM, BartC wrote: >>> On 08/11/2016 14:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> >>> Rather a deep subject to be discussed in the form of one-line quips! >> >> If you love or like C syntax and semantics, you should really start to >> write your own compiler. >> > > And if you like driving, or love the looks of a Ferrari, you should > really start designing your own cars. > > I really doubt that anyone who understands what they are doing would use > C for writing a compiler these days - unless it was just for fun. Hasn't anyone thought to question the subject line yet? Surely a compiler *design* should be implementation-language-neutral, and therefore off-topic for this group? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01pej$r3h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96276 |
On 11/10/2016 04:52 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > Hasn't anyone thought to question the subject line yet? > > Surely a compiler *design* should be implementation-language-neutral, > and therefore off-topic for this group? I don't see that. Surely you can do a high level design in a language-independent fashion, but sooner or later, if you're implementing a program in any given language, you have to create a low-level design specific to that language, because language features affect the best way to design a program. There's two aspects of a compiler design that could justify talking about it here: a) you're implementing it in C, and need advice about how to design the C implementation b) you're implementing a C compiler, and need advice on how to design it in a way that ensures that it will conform to some specified version of the C standard. Those are two completely separate issues, neither of which have ended up being discussed in this thread. Instead, much of the discussion has ended up being about whether it would be a good to do both at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01r5l$vp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96276 |
On 10/11/16 10:52, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 08/11/16 19:48, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/11/16 15:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>> On 8/11/2016 10:25 PM, BartC wrote: >>>> On 08/11/2016 14:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >>>> >>>> Rather a deep subject to be discussed in the form of one-line quips! >>> >>> If you love or like C syntax and semantics, you should really start to >>> write your own compiler. >>> >> >> And if you like driving, or love the looks of a Ferrari, you should >> really start designing your own cars. >> >> I really doubt that anyone who understands what they are doing would use >> C for writing a compiler these days - unless it was just for fun. > > Hasn't anyone thought to question the subject line yet? > I just assumed that the OP didn't write what he meant - his wording is often inaccurate (I don't think he is a native English speaker). > Surely a compiler *design* should be implementation-language-neutral, > and therefore off-topic for this group? > The subject line did not even make it clear if he wanted to develop a compiler in C, or develop a compiler /for/ C. It looked a lot more like the start of a general discussion, which is what the thread has become.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o01rso$3kt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96308 |
On 11/10/2016 08:03 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > I just assumed that the OP didn't write what he meant - his wording is > often inaccurate (I don't think he is a native English speaker). I agree. But even allowing for it not being his native language, his comments usually don't make much sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o01tpf$a2h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96310 |
On 10/11/16 14:15, James Kuyper wrote: > On 11/10/2016 08:03 AM, David Brown wrote: > ... >> I just assumed that the OP didn't write what he meant - his wording is >> often inaccurate (I don't think he is a native English speaker). > > I agree. But even allowing for it not being his native language, his > comments usually don't make much sense. > I was just being diplomatic in my wording - I agree that there is little of sense in most of his comments. At least he is not obnoxious, unlike certain other non-sensical posters here, and there have been some interesting discussions in this thread that he started.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvthjc$3pu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96073 |
Le 08/11/2016 à 15:17, Mr. Man-wai Chang a écrit : > > Could we talk about that? lcc-win is a C compiler system written entirely in C. The design is very simple, with front end, back end, assembler, linker, IDE and debugger. A make utility is also provided. Front end has been rewritten for C99, and for better code generation. The simplifier of lcc has been enhanced, the declarations parsing is C99 now, many things have been changed but is basically lcc 3.6. The back end also has been through many modifications but the basic structure of the compiler compiler (lburg), the machine description (*.md files), and generation of code from machine assembler snippets is there like in the original lcc 3.6 The assembler is new, generating COFF format object files. The linker is a monolithic piece of code, very small and fast for a linker, but it is difficult to retarget. The IDE and the debugger are also very small. The source for the IDE_debugger is just 1.4 MB zipped The compiler compiles the compiler itself, the linker and the debugger. Any bug in code generation is then, very difficult to spot. If the generated executable is crashing is because: 1) The program of the user has a bug 2) The linker has a bug 3) the assembler has a bug 4) the compiler has a bug Too many culprits. The solution is (of course) microsoftish. If you recompile the compiler with msvc you eliminate (or not) THAT component, etc. A bug in the compiler can introduce bugs in the system libc, since the libc is also compiled with lcc, no other compiler would be usable. Etc, there are so many things to say about this subject matter... jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvv26b$j0m$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96142 |
On 9/11/2016 5:55 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > The compiler compiles the compiler itself, the linker and the debugger. > Any bug in code generation is then, very difficult to spot. If the > generated executable is crashing is because: > > 1) The program of the user has a bug > 2) The linker has a bug > 3) the assembler has a bug > 4) the compiler has a bug > > Too many culprits. The solution is (of course) microsoftish. If you > recompile the compiler with msvc you eliminate (or not) THAT component, > etc. Don't forget about the hardware, as some devices have firmware! :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fc22938-e17e-4720-a9e2-884e27f713fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96073 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:18:07 AM UTC-6, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > Could we talk about that? Yes, please! I've been entertaining thoughts of writing a C compiler, according to my own idiosyncratic methods. Chief idiosyncrazy is trying to find the earliest extant description and targeting /that/. When I wrote my first postscript interpreter I tried targeting version 3.0 stuff right off the bat. When I wrote my first /good/ postscript interpreter, it targeted version 1.0. Because the version 1 manual is 250 pages. and the version 3 is like 1100 pages. If you want to actually hit a milestone, pick the sAnmaller hill. So my idea for a C compiler is for it accept the 1974 manual's definition of C. cf. https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/cman.pdf And for the target? My macro'fugged baby 8086! Read it and weep... or some other reaction. But by containing both a compiler and a VM, it can compile-and-go like a scripting language. It could offer all the implementation guaranteed you could ask for! By totally controlling "the implementation". I've hesitated to announce about it because I haven't written a lick of code. But to the naysayers I say, go and read Fraser and Hansen, A Retargetable C Compiler. It's all there in the old books. All the ideas that last are old.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a3daca1e-feb4-4a02-ae65-cef224eb84f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96171 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-6, luser droog wrote: > And for the target? My macro'fugged baby 8086! > Read it and weep... or some other reaction. https://github.com/luser-dr00g/8086/blob/master/a8086.c -- Hasty typing prose. Link collecting lagging sore. such usenet.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web