Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #4898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-28 09:08 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-05-28 18:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 139 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-28 09:08 +0200
Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 02:48 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-29 17:51 +0200
Re: for your languages Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-16 15:39 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-17 09:55 +0200
Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 22:21 -0500
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-20 09:51 +0200
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-20 12:06 +0200
Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 10:08 -0500
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-08 20:06 +0200
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 11:06 +0100
Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 03:38 -0700
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-28 16:01 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 19:36 +0100
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-28 21:18 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:33 +0100
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 08:31 -0400
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-29 05:37 -0700
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 09:09 -0400
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-29 07:00 -0700
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-29 16:52 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:18 +0100
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-30 22:21 -0400
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-30 20:39 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:44 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:12 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:44 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:05 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:34 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:00 +0100
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-31 13:10 +0100
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-31 06:20 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:53 -0700
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:23 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 17:46 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 17:05 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:39 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 22:18 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 00:44 +0000
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 19:04 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:44 +0100
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 19:40 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:58 +0100
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 23:09 +0000
Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:28 -0500
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:41 -0700
Re: for your languages Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 11:15 -0400
Re: for your languages Lorenzo Villari <vlllnz@tiscali.it> - 2011-05-28 20:05 +0200
Re: for your languages Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 14:16 -0400
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 12:07 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:19 +0100
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 08:59 -0400
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 01:50 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-29 20:36 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 00:28 +0100
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-30 17:21 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 01:58 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 01:27 +0000
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:37 -0700
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-31 18:34 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:06 +0100
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:30 -0400
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:36 +0100
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 22:06 -0400
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-01 18:19 -0700
Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 01:06 -0500
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 12:02 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:34 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 15:53 -0700
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 12:24 -0700
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 01:10 +0000
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:34 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 14:58 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:18 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 13:40 -0700
Re: for your languages Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-06-02 17:31 -0400
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 10:39 -0700
Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 22:19 -0400
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-02 19:36 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 08:44 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-04 14:41 +0100
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:31 +0000
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-04 09:51 -0700
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-05 00:05 +0000
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-04 18:31 -0700
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-04 10:02 -0700
Re: for your languages cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-06-04 22:10 +0000
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-04 18:26 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 13:40 +0100
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-05 15:47 +0000
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:16 -0700
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:30 -0700
Re: for your languages Heikki Kallasjoki <see@end.of.message.invalid> - 2011-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:49 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-04 09:50 -0700
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-04 13:23 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 12:32 +0100
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 07:15 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-06 18:18 +0200
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 11:40 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 16:57 +0200
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-07 08:36 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 18:19 +0200
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 18:32 +0200
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 12:33 -0700
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 13:08 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 13:54 -0700
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 18:57 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 20:37 -0700
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 20:58 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 21:49 -0700
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 22:05 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-06 09:11 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-16 13:00 -0700
Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-06 02:04 -0700
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-06 10:21 +0100
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-05 22:47 +0100
Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 18:25 -0700
Re: for your languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:41 +1200
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-06 10:06 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 00:44 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 18:09 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 12:00 -0700
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:33 +0100
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 09:07 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 10:12 -0700
Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 12:45 -0700
Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-03 15:41 +0100
Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 13:30 +0100
Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-28 03:34 -0700
Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-29 08:42 +0200
Re: for your languages Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2011-05-29 01:00 +0200
Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:49 +0000
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:42 -0700
Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:42 -0700
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3839df0-9dbb-477c-ade1-7d0f8e0fff22@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #5570 |
On Jun 6, 6:18 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: > "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggionews:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware, > >but the contention that they make abstract programming languages > >superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable. > > i would not laught too much... Because?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 16:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4dee3c07$0$38648$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #5577 |
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio news:b3839df0-9dbb-477c-ade1->7d0f8e0fff22@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Jun 6, 6:18 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel >> messaggionews:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware, >> >but the contention that they make abstract programming languages >> >superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable. >> >> i would not laught too much... >Because? i think you are wrong it is possible to do without hlls and easier too sorry for your languages etc etc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1uz5fybp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5601 |
"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> writes:
> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:b3839df0-9dbb-477c-ade1->7d0f8e0fff22@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 6, 6:18 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel
>>> messaggionews:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware,
>>> >but the contention that they make abstract programming languages
>>> >superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable.
>>>
>>> i would not laught too much...
>
>>Because?
>
> i think you are wrong
> it is possible to do without hlls
> and easier too
> sorry for your languages etc etc
Suppose we've both written large programs that run on MacOS for
PowerPC (just one of many possible examples). Mine is written in
some high-level language, perhaps C; yours is in assembly language.
Apple switches for PowerPC to x86.
I recompile my program, and it works. You have to rewrite every
line of yours.
How exactly is your approach better?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 18:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4dee4f49$0$18241$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #5603 |
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ln1uz5fybp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org... > "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> writes: >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio >> news:b3839df0-9dbb-477c-ade1->7d0f8e0fff22@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 6, 6:18 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: >>>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel >>>> messaggionews:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware, >>>> >but the contention that they make abstract programming languages >>>> >superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable. >>>> >>>> i would not laught too much... >> >>>Because? >> >> i think you are wrong >> it is possible to do without hlls >> and easier too >> sorry for your languages etc etc > > Suppose we've both written large programs that run on MacOS for > PowerPC (just one of many possible examples). Mine is written in > some high-level language, perhaps C; yours is in assembly language. > > Apple switches for PowerPC to x86. > > I recompile my program, and it works. You have to rewrite every > line of yours. but i not have a PowerPc, i have this pc i write > How exactly is your approach better? 1) it is easier to program 2) algo has to be without UBs, if there is some chances to write something without UBs: it is in assembly 3) when i write to one varible i have to know the min_value max_value that varible has and how operation work on that variable without Undefinited Behaviour
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 18:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4dee5260$0$38640$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #5603 |
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@mib.org> ha scritto nel messaggio news:ln1uz5fybp.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org... > "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> writes: >> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio >> news:b3839df0-9dbb-477c-ade1->7d0f8e0fff22@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 6, 6:18 pm, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote: >>>> "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel >>>> messaggionews:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware, >>>> >but the contention that they make abstract programming languages >>>> >superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable. >>>> >>>> i would not laught too much... >> >>>Because? >> >> i think you are wrong >> it is possible to do without hlls >> and easier too >> sorry for your languages etc etc > > Suppose we've both written large programs that run on MacOS for > PowerPC (just one of many possible examples). Mine is written in > some high-level language, perhaps C; yours is in assembly language. > > Apple switches for PowerPC to x86. > > I recompile my program, and it works. You have to rewrite every > line of yours. i did not read well above; it is the same cpu... easy it happen in the switch windows<->linux i had some time ago no problem, if the cpu is the same, it is enough change all the Os calls; one has to think that Os calls in an executable not are too many if one see all the lines of code; than Os could have function not much different i have to say that that switch did not regard thread functions or particular difficult Os functions, only file - memory functions
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5483 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> I don't believe it. An assembly language provides
>> tokens and syntax for fully specifying machine language
>> instructions. An assembly language is exactly as
>> abstract as the stored program digital computer for
>> which it is written.
>
> Please notice that in this thread we are talking about macro-assembly
> languages. This distinction is fundamental to this discussion, as it
> makes it clear that we are discussing assembly languages which explicitly
> support code abstraction. That is, the language does more than simply
> offer a more human-friendly way to set specific opcodes, and is capable of
> abstracting more than mere individual opcodes.
Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more
powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence
of macro assemblers does not support your claim that:
all high level programming languages are macro-assembly languages
of sorts, varying in their level of abstraction and how their
macros are implemented and handled.
Given a C source program that uses macros, plus the definitions
of those macros, we can determine exactly what the output of the
C preprocessor is going to look like. (There might be some corner
cases where the result is undefined or unspecified, but none that
affect the oveall point.)
I assert that, given an assembly source program plus the definitions
of any macros that it uses, we can determine exactly what sequence
of machine code instructions the assembler will generate when given
that source program as input.
Your repeated failure or refusal to provide a counterexample makes
me suspect that my assertion is actually correct, and that you don't
know what you're talking about. I invite you to prove me wrong.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-5E9E0A.13083605062011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5519 |
In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more > powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is really going on. Advanced macro processors for assemblers have been Turing machines for a few decades now. -- I remember finding out about you, | I survived XYZZY-Day. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room |Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnboycgfsv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5522 |
China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more
>> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence
>
> If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is really
> going on.
You're right, I probably don't. I haven't programmed in assembly
language since longer ago than I care to admit. That's why I'm asking
questions, but straight answers seem to be in short supply.
> Advanced macro processors for assemblers have been Turing machines for
> a few decades now.
I presume you mean they're Turing-equivalent.
Ok, fine, I'll assume that's accurate. If so, how does it affect the
underlying claim? Even if a macro processor is Turing-equivalent,
isn't the output still fully determined by the input?
Since Rui Maciel has so far declined to provide a concrete example,
perhaps you can do so.
In my limited experience, assemblers these days are used
mostly to translate the output of a compiler into machine code.
(Some compilers generate machine code directly, but generating
textual assembly code is presumably easier.) Such an assembler,
which likely has some kind of macro capability, would serve that
purpose perfectly well by generating only the *exact* sequence of
instructions specified by its input, with no flexibility to perform
optimizations or other transformations. Any optimizations can be
performed by the compiler itself.
It's been repeatedly claimed that modern macro assemblers aren't
like that.
Show us.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 18:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-2B3C76.18571305062011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5523 |
In article <lnboycgfsv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:
> China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> > In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more
> >> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence
> >
> > If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is
> > really
> > going on.
>
> You're right, I probably don't. I haven't programmed in assembly
> language since longer ago than I care to admit. That's why I'm asking
> questions, but straight answers seem to be in short supply.
The Cyber 205 (it's been defunct for about 20 years) assembler was META. I've
forgotten the exact syntax, but it allowed something like
IF [R4,EQ,R5]
THEN
WHILE [predicate]
ENDWHILE
ELSE
ENDIF
The limit of complexity of predicates depended on how clever the macro writer
wanted to be. You could've defined a macro for
ASSIGN R254,[R100,ADD,[R10,MPY,R11]]
The [,,] was a list format; the authour converted expressions into parse trees
which were represented as nested lists.
I also wrote field extraction macros for the 170 that could expand into variously
SX.i X.i
or
MX0 m
BX.i X0*X.i
or
MX0 m
AX.i X.i,s
AX0 X0,s
BX.i -X0*X.i
depending on the field location and width.
> In my limited experience, assemblers these days are used
> mostly to translate the output of a compiler into machine code.
Unix assemblers use m4 as their macro processor. m4 is a flexible macro
processor. configure etc use it instantiate makefiles.
--
I remember finding out about you, | I survived XYZZY-Day.
Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room |Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 20:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny61ffx4o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5537 |
China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <lnboycgfsv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>> China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more
>> >> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence
>> >
>> > If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is
>> > really
>> > going on.
>>
>> You're right, I probably don't. I haven't programmed in assembly
>> language since longer ago than I care to admit. That's why I'm asking
>> questions, but straight answers seem to be in short supply.
>
> The Cyber 205 (it's been defunct for about 20 years) assembler was META. I've
> forgotten the exact syntax, but it allowed something like
> IF [R4,EQ,R5]
> THEN
> WHILE [predicate]
> ENDWHILE
> ELSE
> ENDIF
>
> The limit of complexity of predicates depended on how clever the macro writer
> wanted to be. You could've defined a macro for
> ASSIGN R254,[R100,ADD,[R10,MPY,R11]]
>
> The [,,] was a list format; the authour converted expressions into parse trees
> which were represented as nested lists.
>
> I also wrote field extraction macros for the 170 that could expand into variously
> SX.i X.i
> or
> MX0 m
> BX.i X0*X.i
> or
> MX0 m
> AX.i X.i,s
> AX0 X0,s
> BX.i -X0*X.i
> depending on the field location and width.
>
>> In my limited experience, assemblers these days are used
>> mostly to translate the output of a compiler into machine code.
>
> Unix assemblers use m4 as their macro processor. m4 is a flexible macro
> processor. configure etc use it instantiate makefiles.
None of which, as far as I can tell, suggests that an assembler's
output isn't entirely determined by its input.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 20:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-09FD7C.20581505062011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5541 |
In article <lny61ffx4o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > None of which, as far as I can tell, suggests that an assembler's > output isn't entirely determined by its input. All non-stochastic programmes are injective or bijective computable functions. -- I remember finding out about you, | I survived XYZZY-Day. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room |Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntyc3fttj.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5542 |
China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <lny61ffx4o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>
>> None of which, as far as I can tell, suggests that an assembler's
>> output isn't entirely determined by its input.
>
> All non-stochastic programmes are injective or bijective computable functions.
That's nice.
A C program clearly does not completely specify the sequence of CPU
instructions that will be used to implement it. Rather, it specifies
the *behavior* of the program (or a range of permissible behaviors),
which any of a number of different instruction sequences might be
used to implement.
A macro assembly program, as I understand it, does completely specify
the sequence of CPU instructions.
Rui Maciel disputes this second claim, but has so far not provided a
single concrete example to support his claim.
A consequence of your statement above is that a given *compiler*
will, unless it depends on something non-deterministic, always
produce the same object code for a given translation unit. But it
*could* have generated very different object code while still being
a correct compiler.
I can't even tell whether you're agreeing with Rui Maciel or not.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 22:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-358AA5.22050705062011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5544 |
In article <lntyc3fttj.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes: > > In article <lny61ffx4o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> > > wrote: > > > >> None of which, as far as I can tell, suggests that an assembler's > >> output isn't entirely determined by its input. > > > > All non-stochastic programmes are injective or bijective computable > > functions. > > That's nice. Call me when you give up your fundamentalism. -- I remember finding out about you, | I survived XYZZY-Day. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room |Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 09:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpqmrey7w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5545 |
China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <lntyc3fttj.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>> China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > In article <lny61ffx4o.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> None of which, as far as I can tell, suggests that an assembler's
>> >> output isn't entirely determined by its input.
>> >
>> > All non-stochastic programmes are injective or bijective computable
>> > functions.
>>
>> That's nice.
>
> Call me when you give up your fundamentalism.
Huh??
Your use of the word "fundamentalism" indicates that you have little
or no idea what I'm actually talking about. I don't *think* I've
been that unclear, but perhaps I have. I'll try to explain it again.
In my experience (which is long but by no means universal), an
"assembler" or "macro assembler" is a program that translates
assembly language input into a sequence of machine code instructions,
where the output is entirely determined by the input. That's a
major difference between an assembly language and a high-level
compiled language, and between an assembler and a compiler.
Rui Maciel claims that, for all modern macro assemblers he knows
about, the output is *not* entirely determined by the input, and
that there is no clear line between assemblers and compilers.
In particular, he claims that C is essentially a higher-level
macro assembly language. (I think that's an accurate summary;
he can certainly correct me if it isn't.)
Since his claims are at odds with my own experience, I've asked
him to clarify, and particularly to provide concrete examples of
what he's talking about. He has not yet done so.
You've provided examples of macro assemblers whose macro facility is
clearly more powerful than the C preprocessor, which is interesting,
but doesn't really address the issue. They're still expanding
macros, which means (as I understand it) that the output is still
strictly determined by the input.
My earlier question:
Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more
powerful than the macro facility provided by C?
might have confused the issue a bit. A macro facility can be
much more powerful than the C preprocessor while still being
deterministic.
I'm not aware of any "fundamentalism" in what I've written.
Perhaps that word does not mean what you think it means.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-16 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnips535t8.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #5569 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
> Rui Maciel claims that, for all modern macro assemblers he knows
> about, the output is *not* entirely determined by the input, and
> that there is no clear line between assemblers and compilers.
> In particular, he claims that C is essentially a higher-level
> macro assembly language. (I think that's an accurate summary;
> he can certainly correct me if it isn't.)
>
> Since his claims are at odds with my own experience, I've asked
> him to clarify, and particularly to provide concrete examples of
> what he's talking about. He has not yet done so.
And apparently isn't going to. A pity; I was interested in what he
would have had to say, and very likely would have learned something.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 02:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-FEA208.02040106062011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #5537 |
In article <chine.bleu-2B3C76.18571305062011@news.eternal-september.org>, China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <lnboycgfsv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> > wrote: > > > China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes: > > > In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> > > > wrote: > > >> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more > > >> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence > > > > > > If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is > > > really > > > going on. > > > > You're right, I probably don't. I haven't programmed in assembly > > language since longer ago than I care to admit. That's why I'm asking > > questions, but straight answers seem to be in short supply. > > The Cyber 205 (it's been defunct for about 20 years) assembler was META. I've > forgotten the exact syntax, but it allowed something like > IF [R4,EQ,R5] > THEN > WHILE [predicate] > ENDWHILE > ELSE > ENDIF > > The limit of complexity of predicates depended on how clever the macro writer > wanted to be. You could've defined a macro for > ASSIGN R254,[R100,ADD,[R10,MPY,R11]] > > The [,,] was a list format; the authour converted expressions into parse trees > which were represented as nested lists. > > I also wrote field extraction macros for the 170 that could expand into variously > SX.i X.i > or > MX0 m > BX.i X0*X.i > or > MX0 m > AX.i X.i,s > AX0 X0,s > BX.i -X0*X.i > depending on the field location and width. Is it the case that any time you invoke the macro you know which case will manifest? -- Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <isi67u$5b2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5537 |
"China Blue Angels" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-2B3C76.18571305062011@news.eternal-september.org... > The Cyber 205 (it's been defunct for about 20 years) assembler was META. > I've > forgotten the exact syntax, but it allowed something like > IF [R4,EQ,R5] > THEN > WHILE [predicate] > ENDWHILE > ELSE > ENDIF > > The limit of complexity of predicates depended on how clever the macro > writer > wanted to be. You could've defined a macro for > ASSIGN R254,[R100,ADD,[R10,MPY,R11]] > > The [,,] was a list format; the authour converted expressions into parse > trees > which were represented as nested lists. The above is typical of what I might expect an advanced macro-assembler to be capable of. But that's a long way from being able to do: IF [A,EQ,B] or: if (a==b) where the macro processor itself has to decide what to do with A and B, what registers to use, what conversions and runtime support to invoke, and what error checking and reporting might be needed. As a way of enhancing assembly language so it *looks like* a HLL, a macro processor is great. But it can't *create* a true HLL. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 22:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <isgtja$s3c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #5522 |
"China Blue Angels" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:chine.bleu-5E9E0A.13083605062011@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson > <kst-u@mib.org> > wrote: > >> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more >> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence > > If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is > really > going on. Advanced macro processors for assemblers have been Turing > machines for > a few decades now. So if you have a powerful enough macro-language, you can implement any language? (Ie. translating a source language to a target language, and be able to cope with *any* desired syntax in the source language.) In that case, maybe the claim *is* justified, although it's difficult to appreciate what advantages this might have for an implementer, since some programming will still be needed. In practice, it's difficult to believe that a HLL with a beautiful, elegant syntax, hierarchical type system, lots of subtle, aesthetic features (I'm not necessarily talking about C..), can be grafted on to a typical clunky macro-assembler just by writing enough macros! In fact, not many people will make this connection, so I'm not sure what the purpose of the original claim was; it doesn't really help with anything. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-05 18:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-CA1D63.18251405062011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #5528 |
In article <isgtja$s3c$1@dont-email.me>, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > "China Blue Angels" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:chine.bleu-5E9E0A.13083605062011@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <lnr578gjj7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson > > <kst-u@mib.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Is the macro facility provided by a macro-assembly language more > >> powerful than the macro facility provided by C? If not, the existence > > > > If you even have to ask this question, it means you don't know what is > > really > > going on. Advanced macro processors for assemblers have been Turing > > machines for > > a few decades now. > > So if you have a powerful enough macro-language, you can implement any > language? (Ie. translating a source language to a target language, and be > able to cope with *any* desired syntax in the source language.) You should do some research instead of spitting in the mind. I don't know why you're so upset over this. I use an advanced macro processor (similar to m4) with my C sources. What is easy with macro I do with a macro; what it easy in C I do in C. I use my macros and #defines, I don't have this religious fundamentalism you do. -- I remember finding out about you, | I survived XYZZY-Day. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room |Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-06 13:41 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <952phlFd8qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #5534 |
On 06/ 6/11 01:25 PM, China Blue Angels wrote: > > You should do some research instead of spitting in the mind. I don't know why > you're so upset over this. I use an advanced macro processor (similar to m4) > with my C sources. What is easy with macro I do with a macro; what it easy in C > I do in C. I use my macros and #defines, I don't have this religious > fundamentalism you do. Or perhaps you should be using a language better suited to what you want to do? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web