Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #10412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:57 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 07:53 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 08:23 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 16:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 10:10 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 05:07 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 14:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-19 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 17:21 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:27 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 18:31 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-21 01:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:03 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 02:33 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 10:08 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid websnarf <websnarf@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:51 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:11 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-19 22:21 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-09-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:09 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 20:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 22:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 22:43 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 19:03 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 14:11 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 21:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 06:17 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-28 07:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 07:26 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:26 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-30 01:27 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-30 08:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:21 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-09-18 23:10 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 03:34 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-18 22:32 -0600
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 18:15 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:02 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 20:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 16:11 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:28 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:07 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 11:28 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 15:45 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 14:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 21:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 14:40 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:44 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 18:44 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 07:04 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:30 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:39 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 14:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 19:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-21 05:25 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 12:16 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 23:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 21:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-24 14:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:43 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:26 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:53 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 02:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 22:24 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:36 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:30 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-22 18:23 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 06:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-19 19:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:02 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 06:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 20:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-28 09:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-18 23:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:45 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 19:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2011-09-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 01:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-17 17:15 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Максим Фомин <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> - 2011-09-18 00:43 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-18 10:34 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-20 09:28 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 10:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5hnui$il7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10745 |
On 09/23/2011 05:28 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >> On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: [Re: languages (not necessarily C or even C-like) with pointers] ... >>> If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that >>> a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has >>> never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. >> >> As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? > > Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word > for a reason? ... Yes I considered that possibility - I just wanted to confirm that you were making so weak a point. A language designer could with equal ease assert to the contrary, and several apparently already have. I've never made use of this feature of perl, and I've almost certainly never used any of the other unspecified languages that have been referred to as having this feature, so I've no idea how useful or dangerous it is. Among other obvious possibilities, such a feature would slightly simplify the writing of factory functions: instead of calling malloc() to allocate the memory, they just declare a local object of the required type, initialize it, and then return a pointer to it. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <871uv71g7d.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10751 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > On 09/23/2011 05:28 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > >> On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > > [Re: languages (not necessarily C or even C-like) with pointers] This is a direct descendent of: """ Well, C too does that. """ Which looks like a claim about C and C alone. > ... > >>> If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that > >>> a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has > >>> never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. > >> > >> As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? > > > > Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word > > for a reason? ... > > Yes I considered that possibility - I just wanted to confirm that you > were making so weak a point. A language designer could with equal ease ... do a lot of irrelevant things. The language designer in question is Jacob, and he's perporting to implement C. I'm perfectly familiar with perl and its references and have no issue that the concept makes perfect sense in that language, but Jacob's claim was about how he was doing 'C'. Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E7CA647.6050408@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #10760 |
On 09/23/2011 10:33 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >> On 09/23/2011 05:28 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >>>> On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: >> >> [Re: languages (not necessarily C or even C-like) with pointers] > > This is a direct descendent of: > """ > Well, C too does that. > """ > Which looks like a claim about C and C alone. That's a mis-reading of what jacob said, because "C" has a different meaning in jacob's understand than it does in yours or mine. Such a feature could be, depending upon how it's handled, a legitimate extension to a fully conforming implementation of C, precisely because the behavior is undefined, as far as the C standard is concerned. lcc's extensions to C are, from jacob's point of view, just as much "C" as the base language that they were extended from. His claims about "C" must always be evaluated with that quirk of terminology in mind. What he meant by that statement was really no different from what I would have meant if I had said: "Well, lcc does that too." My comments were made with that translation in mind. >>>>> If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that >>>>> a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has >>>>> never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. >>>> >>>> As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? >>> >>> Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word >>> for a reason? ... >> >> Yes I considered that possibility - I just wanted to confirm that you >> were making so weak a point. A language designer could with equal ease > > ... do a lot of irrelevant things. The language designer in question > is Jacob, and he's perporting to implement C. I think jacob would acknowledge that what he's described is an extension to C, and not anything guaranteed (or prohibited!) by the C standard itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5ii0a$gcd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10766 |
Le 23/09/11 17:31, James Kuyper a écrit : > On 09/23/2011 10:33 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >> James Kuyper<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >>> On 09/23/2011 05:28 AM, Phil Carmody wrote: >>>> James Kuyper<jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: >>>>> On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: >>> >>> [Re: languages (not necessarily C or even C-like) with pointers] >> >> This is a direct descendent of: >> """ >> Well, C too does that. >> """ >> Which looks like a claim about C and C alone. > > That's a mis-reading of what jacob said, because "C" has a different > meaning in jacob's understand than it does in yours or mine. > > Such a feature could be, depending upon how it's handled, a legitimate > extension to a fully conforming implementation of C, precisely because > the behavior is undefined, as far as the C standard is concerned. I was speaking about the garbage collector, that lcc-win ships with its runtime since 2005. I justdo not understand why you think that a garbage collector "is not C" or whatever. I ship a statistics library too, and with the same reasoning you could say that "It is not C" because the standard doesn't mention statistics. > lcc's > extensions to C are, from jacob's point of view, just as much "C" as the > base language that they were extended from. Yes, since a garbage collector doesn't change either the syntax or the semantics of the language. What is going on on your mind? Are you OK? > His claims about "C" must > always be evaluated with that quirk of terminology in mind. What he > meant by that statement was really no different from what I would have > meant if I had said: "Well, lcc does that too." My comments were made > with that translation in mind. > OK, you do not like me or lcc-win or both. So what? >> ... do a lot of irrelevant things. The language designer in question >> is Jacob, and he's perporting to implement C. > > I think jacob would acknowledge that what he's described is an extension > to C, and not anything guaranteed (or prohibited!) by the C standard itself. > ANY library shipped with the compiler then is an "extension to C". My statistics library is an "extension to C". The infinte precision numbers are also "extensions". This is ridiculous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5ihji$etm$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10760 |
Le 23/09/11 16:33, Phil Carmody a écrit : > > ... do a lot of irrelevant things. The language designer in question > is Jacob, and he's perporting to implement C. I'm perfectly familiar > with perl and its references and have no issue that the concept makes > perfect sense in that language, but Jacob's claim was about how he was > doing 'C'. lcc-win has been shipping a garbage collector since 2004. It is a very useful enhancement to the run time library, not to the language since C doesn't change either its syntax or its semantics. You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5fb1e19-e293-405c-b069-708c85927019@br5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10790 |
On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: > > You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all > there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. > gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way most programs are written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9e4adhFunvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10803 |
On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >> >> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >> > gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate > knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and > add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension > rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical > reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way > most programs are written. I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and it is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, all I have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the act of linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5isgi$bu5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10806 |
Le 23/09/11 23:01, Ian Collins a écrit : > On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>> >>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>> >> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >> most programs are written. > > I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The > compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and it > is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, all I > have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the act of > linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? > Well, that is gcc. Gcc can do whatever they want, the problem is when lcc-win does the same :-) THEN "It is not C" "He is selling is Warez" etc etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9e4csbFf0iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10807 |
On 09/24/11 09:08 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 23/09/11 23:01, Ian Collins a écrit : >> On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>>> >>> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >>> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >>> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >>> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >>> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >>> most programs are written. >> >> I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The >> compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and it >> is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, all I >> have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the act of >> linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? > > Well, that is gcc. Sun cc actually. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.f70ba70d7891dde26662.20110923221347BST.87sjnnuflg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #10806 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>> >>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>> >> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >> most programs are written. > > I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The > compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and > it is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, > all I have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the > act of linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? Not "your code" but there are conforming C programs that will fail with some garbage collected implementations. The details too horridly contrived to matter (think %p and it's guarantees) so I mention it only because this is c.l.c. In reality, the problem is that one does not link against a GC allocator just for fun. The reason is that the program allocates storage that is not always freed and some people get uneasy about that. There are cases where the code path is simply too complex to free everything reliably. For example, in a simple interpreter for a high-level language I'd use GC rather than try to determine every piece of storage's end of life. There are other cases where it was simply that the programmer decided not to bother. Whatever the reason, code that needs to be linked against a collecting allocator is then tied to one and maybe that is what makes people wary. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5iulk$g7h$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10809 |
Le 23/09/11 23:13, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : > Whatever the reason, code that needs to be linked > against a collecting allocator is then tied to one and maybe that is > what makes people wary. > Sure, but then, that is true for EVERY library that you use. If you use OpenGL your code is tied to it. If you use some network library your code is tied to it. Etc. To get rid of the collector you just replace gc_malloc by malloc and add all the calls to free(). To replace OpenGl you write your own graphic library. To replace the network library you write your own TCP/IP implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.4a0ebb71d3020c8258b5.20110924000128BST.87mxduvp6f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #10818 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes: > Le 23/09/11 23:13, Ben Bacarisse a écrit : >> Whatever the reason, code that needs to be linked >> against a collecting allocator is then tied to one and maybe that is >> what makes people wary. > > Sure, but then, that is true for EVERY library that you use. > If you use OpenGL your code is tied to it. If you use some > network library your code is tied to it. Of course, but not every library has an standard C alternative. > To get rid of the collector you just replace gc_malloc by > malloc and add all the calls to free(). Simples! > To replace OpenGl you write your own graphic library. > > To replace the network library you write your own TCP/IP > implementation. The fact that replacing them is so hard makes the argument for using them overwhelming. That's not always true for a collecting allocator. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9e4d32Ff0iU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10809 |
On 09/24/11 09:13 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>>> >>> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >>> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >>> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >>> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >>> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >>> most programs are written. >> >> I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The >> compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and >> it is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, >> all I have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the >> act of linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? > > Not "your code" but there are conforming C programs that will fail with > some garbage collected implementations. The details too horridly > contrived to matter (think %p and it's guarantees) so I mention it only > because this is c.l.c. > > In reality, the problem is that one does not link against a GC allocator > just for fun. That's one of the better uses! I had great fun linking it against system applications and watching the leak log! Mind you, this was nigh on 20 years ago. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E7CF8A3.7030903@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #10806 |
On 09/23/2011 05:01 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>> >>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>> >> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >> most programs are written. > > I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The > compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and it > is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, all I > have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the act of > linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? "non-standard" is not a concept used by the C standard - it uses other terms like "syntax error", "constraint violation", "unspecified behavior", "undefined behavior", "conforming" and "strictly conforming" when conveying such judgements. Such linkage does not render your code non-conforming, it doesn't even interfere with strict conformance. However, if you don't merely link to the collector, but actually use it, that would interfere with strict conformance. That's because the interface to the collector is not part of any conforming implementation of the C standard library, and the collector itself cannot be written in strictly conforming C. However, very few programs are strictly conforming; possibly none that do anything really useful. The biggest conformance problem with using garbage collection is that your code will not be portable to any implementation that doesn't provide it, or which provides it by an incompatible mechanism. There's nothing wrong with writing unportable code, so long as it is done deliberately with a a proper understanding of the consequences.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5iuq0$g7h$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10813 |
Le 23/09/11 23:22, James Kuyper a écrit : > > The biggest conformance problem with using garbage collection is that > your code will not be portable to any implementation that doesn't > provide it, or which provides it by an incompatible mechanism. There's > nothing wrong with writing unportable code, so long as it is done > deliberately with a a proper understanding of the consequences. The gc system written by Mr Boehm runs in all workstations, windows machines, what have you. It is distributed with some gcc distributions. But yes, it is a library and if you do not like a dependency just call free() when appropiate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9e4d9lFf0iU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10813 |
On 09/24/11 09:22 AM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/23/2011 05:01 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 09/24/11 08:49 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >>>> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. >>>> >>> gc_malloc() can't be implemented in standard C, and requires intimate >>> knowledge of the architecture to sweep for orphaned memory blocks and >>> add them to the free list. That's enught o classify it as an extension >>> rather than simply as a new function. There's also the practical >>> reason that memory allocation is very fundamental, it changes the way >>> most programs are written. >> >> I don't see why people get so hung up in garbage collection. The >> compiler I mainly use has shipped with a collector since the 90s and it >> is still a standard C compiler. If I want to use the collector, all I >> have to do is link it with my standard C executable. Does the act of >> linking a garbage collector somehow make my code non-standard? > > Such linkage does not render your code non-conforming, it doesn't even > interfere with strict conformance. However, if you don't merely link to > the collector, but actually use it, that would interfere with strict > conformance. That's because the interface to the collector is not part > of any conforming implementation of the C standard library, and the > collector itself cannot be written in strictly conforming C. However, > very few programs are strictly conforming; possibly none that do > anything really useful. Untrue, the main advantage of using a library is the library simply interposes malloc and friends. > The biggest conformance problem with using garbage collection is that > your code will not be portable to any implementation that doesn't > provide it, or which provides it by an incompatible mechanism. There's > nothing wrong with writing unportable code, so long as it is done > deliberately with a a proper understanding of the consequences. The code will be perfectly portable. It will just leak a lot... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E7D02F8.9060307@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #10822 |
On 09/23/2011 05:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 09/24/11 09:22 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> Such linkage does not render your code non-conforming, it doesn't even
>> interfere with strict conformance. However, if you don't merely link to
>> the collector, but actually use it, that would interfere with strict
>> conformance. That's because the interface to the collector is not part
>> of any conforming implementation of the C standard library, and the
>> collector itself cannot be written in strictly conforming C. However,
>> very few programs are strictly conforming; possibly none that do
>> anything really useful.
>
> Untrue, the main advantage of using a library is the library simply
> interposes malloc and friends.
Automatic garbage collection of malloc() allocations cannot be done by a
fully conforming implementation of C. See the requirements for
scanf("%p"), and consider the implications of having the only copy of a
pointer's value stored completely outside of any memory that the garbage
collector is capable of scanning. Of course, you don't need scanf("%p")
to achieve that; fwrite()/fread() is sufficient, unless the garbage
collector also scans files.
>> The biggest conformance problem with using garbage collection is that
>> your code will not be portable to any implementation that doesn't
>> provide it, or which provides it by an incompatible mechanism. There's
>> nothing wrong with writing unportable code, so long as it is done
>> deliberately with a a proper understanding of the consequences.
>
> The code will be perfectly portable. It will just leak a lot...
The problem I mentioned above can be avoided by restricting garbage
collection to memory allocated through non-standard methods (for
instance, a call to gc_malloc()) - the standard makes no guarantees
about the lifetime of memory allocated in that fashion. It's those
non-standard methods, rather than the garbage collection itself, which
render the code non-portable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9e4f9sFf0iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #10824 |
On 09/24/11 10:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 09/23/2011 05:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 09/24/11 09:22 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> ....
>>> Such linkage does not render your code non-conforming, it doesn't even
>>> interfere with strict conformance. However, if you don't merely link to
>>> the collector, but actually use it, that would interfere with strict
>>> conformance. That's because the interface to the collector is not part
>>> of any conforming implementation of the C standard library, and the
>>> collector itself cannot be written in strictly conforming C. However,
>>> very few programs are strictly conforming; possibly none that do
>>> anything really useful.
>>
>> Untrue, the main advantage of using a library is the library simply
>> interposes malloc and friends.
>
> Automatic garbage collection of malloc() allocations cannot be done by a
> fully conforming implementation of C. See the requirements for
> scanf("%p"), and consider the implications of having the only copy of a
> pointer's value stored completely outside of any memory that the garbage
> collector is capable of scanning. Of course, you don't need scanf("%p")
> to achieve that; fwrite()/fread() is sufficient, unless the garbage
> collector also scans files.
I'm sure everyone uses that ridiculous corner case.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5kgsu$t3j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10826 |
On 09/23/2011 06:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 09/24/11 10:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> Automatic garbage collection of malloc() allocations cannot be done by a
>> fully conforming implementation of C. See the requirements for
>> scanf("%p"), and consider the implications of having the only copy of a
>> pointer's value stored completely outside of any memory that the garbage
>> collector is capable of scanning. Of course, you don't need scanf("%p")
>> to achieve that; fwrite()/fread() is sufficient, unless the garbage
>> collector also scans files.
>
> I'm sure everyone uses that ridiculous corner case.
I'm sure that almost no-one relies upon writing pointer values to a file
and reading them back later while they're still valid. Nonetheless, an
inability to handle "that ridiculous corner case" correctly does render
automatic garbage collection of malloc()'d memory non-conforming.
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5khhn$6k3$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10849 |
Le 24/09/11 14:02, James Kuyper a écrit :
> On 09/23/2011 06:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 09/24/11 10:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
>>> Automatic garbage collection of malloc() allocations cannot be done by a
>>> fully conforming implementation of C. See the requirements for
>>> scanf("%p"), and consider the implications of having the only copy of a
>>> pointer's value stored completely outside of any memory that the garbage
>>> collector is capable of scanning. Of course, you don't need scanf("%p")
>>> to achieve that; fwrite()/fread() is sufficient, unless the garbage
>>> collector also scans files.
>>
>> I'm sure everyone uses that ridiculous corner case.
>
> I'm sure that almost no-one relies upon writing pointer values to a file
> and reading them back later while they're still valid. Nonetheless, an
> inability to handle "that ridiculous corner case" correctly does render
> automatic garbage collection of malloc()'d memory non-conforming.
You have a misunderstanding: the collector only cares about pointers
allocated with gc_malloc(). Pointers allocated with plain malloc()
must be freed() as before, they are not concerned with the gc.
Implementation specific limitations to pointers are common place.
For instance doubles must be aligned in an eight byte boundary in
many machines. Nothing about those limitations are specified in the
standard.
Are then all uses of doubles in those machines "not C" (tm) ??
Similarly, pointers allocated with gc_malloc should be kept visible
to the collector, not Xored, whatever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web