Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #56134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-10 13:11 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-20 00:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 205 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 13:11 -0800
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-10 14:26 -0800
Re: faster than c Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:43 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:20 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:39 -0800
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-11 09:23 +0000
Re: faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-11 02:17 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 06:00 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 06:46 -0800
Re: faster than c Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-01-12 15:01 -0600
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 13:44 -0800
Re: faster than c Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-01-12 16:59 -0600
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-12 15:25 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 04:56 -0800
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-12 23:26 +0000
Re: faster than c jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-01-13 01:10 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-13 05:16 -0800
faster than c Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 14:42 -0800
Re: faster than c Cooler_x0a <c00f3r@gmail.com> - 2015-01-10 15:51 -0800
Re: faster than c Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-11 00:21 -0800
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-11 02:27 -0800
Re: faster than c gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2015-01-11 12:17 +0100
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-11 21:02 +0100
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 03:44 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 05:08 -0800
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-21 13:53 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 06:03 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-22 15:06 +0100
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 06:57 -0800
Re: faster than c mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 07:27 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 07:36 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 07:45 -0800
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 22:36 -0700
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-11 21:16 +0100
Re: faster than c Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2015-01-11 15:42 -0500
Re: faster than c Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-01-14 12:25 -0800
Re: faster than c Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-17 13:29 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 05:32 -0800
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-17 14:42 +0100
Re: faster than c Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-17 19:29 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 11:55 -0800
Re: faster than c "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-01-17 08:00 -0600
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-17 10:15 -0800
Re: faster than c wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 10:31 -0800
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-17 19:10 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 11:21 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 11:13 -0800
Re: faster than c Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-01-17 12:32 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 11:01 +0100
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-19 08:24 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 22:52 +0100
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-20 00:04 -0600
Re: faster than c Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-01-19 10:12 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 23:05 +0100
Re: faster than c Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-01-19 16:23 -0800
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 09:32 -0700
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-24 19:08 +0100
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 12:31 -0700
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-03-25 12:45 -0700
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 12:58 -0700
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-25 21:22 +0100
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:30 -0700
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:50 +0100
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 09:20 -0700
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-26 00:55 +0100
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 01:06 +0100
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-03-26 11:34 +0100
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-03-25 20:29 -0700
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 16:34 -0700
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-26 13:53 +1300
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 15:08 -0700
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-29 11:28 +1300
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-30 12:42 -0700
Re: faster than c Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-30 20:06 +0000
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-31 16:37 +1300
Re: faster than c Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-03-31 05:13 +0000
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-31 16:33 +1300
Re: faster than c Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-03-31 00:14 -0700
Re: faster than c wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-01-17 10:33 -0800
Re: faster than c Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-17 20:03 +0000
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 11:07 +0100
Re: faster than c wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-01-26 13:30 -0800
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-18 16:36 +1300
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-17 19:02 +0000
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 19:14 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 11:41 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 12:06 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 20:36 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 13:01 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 21:18 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 13:36 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 11:17 +0100
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-19 10:40 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 03:29 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 03:41 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 12:45 +0100
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 04:00 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 04:31 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 04:48 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-19 15:23 +0100
Re: faster than c mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-01-19 07:25 -0800
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-19 08:56 -0800
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-19 17:01 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 09:08 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 09:19 -0800
Re: faster than c Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-19 17:46 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 10:19 -0800
Re: faster than c Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-19 10:56 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 11:30 -0800
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-19 14:22 -0800
Re: faster than c mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 00:45 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 01:20 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 08:25 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 00:57 -0800
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-19 03:58 -0800
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-20 00:05 -0600
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 02:11 -0800
Re: faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 02:18 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 02:30 -0800
Re: faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 05:16 -0800
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-20 14:18 +0100
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-20 15:29 -0600
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-20 21:53 +0000
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-20 17:37 -0600
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-21 00:05 +0000
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-21 01:38 -0600
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-21 07:46 +0000
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-21 03:23 -0800
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-21 13:52 +0000
Re: faster than c Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-01-21 08:53 -0600
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-21 01:18 +0100
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 16:41 -0800
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-21 01:58 +0100
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 17:11 -0800
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-21 02:18 +0100
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 17:38 -0800
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-21 08:48 -0800
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-20 15:24 -0600
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 13:38 -0800
Re: faster than c Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-21 16:43 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 10:09 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 01:15 -0800
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-21 23:59 -0600
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 01:17 -0800
Re: faster than c wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 05:16 -0800
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 05:27 -0800
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-22 05:36 -0800
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 05:54 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 05:55 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-22 15:18 +0100
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-23 00:53 -0600
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 00:36 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:09 -0800
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:33 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:55 -0800
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-23 22:44 +1300
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:56 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-22 15:11 +0100
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 06:21 -0800
Re: faster than c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-22 16:46 +0100
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 07:58 -0800
Re: faster than c Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2015-01-22 12:29 -0500
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-22 10:09 -0800
Re: faster than c "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 14:07 -0800
Re: faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-24 00:40 -0800
Re: faster than c "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-24 12:53 -0800
Re: faster than c Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-22 15:09 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 01:59 -0800
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 09:46 -0700
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-25 02:15 -0500
Re: faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 02:45 -0700
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-25 11:30 -0700
Re: faster than c Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-26 00:42 -0500
Re: faster than c Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-28 11:35 -0700
Re: faster than c Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-17 14:42 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 22:53 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 15:13 -0800
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-17 22:02 +0000
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-17 16:21 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-18 01:27 +0000
Re: faster than c glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-18 01:41 +0000
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-18 00:11 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-18 11:23 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-18 05:55 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-18 20:11 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-18 13:12 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-18 23:11 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-18 15:49 -0800
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-18 16:06 -0800
Re: faster than c Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-19 01:03 +0000
Re: faster than c Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-19 08:13 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-19 01:39 -0800
Re: faster than c Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-18 13:52 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-18 23:36 +0000
Re: faster than c Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-01-20 14:01 -0500
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-20 11:18 -0800
Re: faster than c Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-01-17 22:30 +0100
Re: faster than c Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-18 16:49 +1300
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 05:55 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 14:30 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 07:32 -0800
Re: faster than c BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-17 15:56 +0000
Re: faster than c fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-17 08:33 -0800
Re: faster than c fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-19 02:26 -0800
faster than c asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-20 00:12 -0800
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 02:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35e93924-0102-4933-9d33-22cded1bedad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56143 |
On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 8:21:28 AM UTC, Geoff wrote: > C is a programming language. > The speed of light in vacuum is c. > C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > Not true if mass is imaginary, that is to say, a particle whose mass is the square root of a negative number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gamo <gamo@telecable.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 12:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8tm3r$83m$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #56148 |
El 11/01/15 a las 11:27, Malcolm McLean escribió: > On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 8:21:28 AM UTC, Geoff wrote: >> C is a programming language. >> The speed of light in vacuum is c. >> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. >> > Not true if mass is imaginary, that is to say, a particle whose mass is the square root of a > negative number. > > The speed of expansion of the big bang was higher than c -- http://www.telecable.es/personales/gamo/ The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 21:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8ukrk$gfg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56143 |
On 11/01/15 09:21, Geoff wrote: > C is a programming language. > The speed of light in vacuum is c. > C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > The speed of dark is faster than the speed of light. When you turn off a light switch, the room goes dark immediately - but when you turn it on, it can take some time for the light to turn on :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 03:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6920eb6b-a6d6-42e5-8847-e673869bf5ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56143 |
W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff napisał: > C is a programming language. > The speed of light in vacuum is c. > C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. asm is faster
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 05:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2faabbd2-990c-4038-94bd-eb12ec49f302@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56544 |
W dniu środa, 21 stycznia 2015 12:44:18 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff napisał: > > C is a programming language. > > The speed of light in vacuum is c. > > C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > > asm is faster in general it is hard to be faster then c not being assembly, though there could be an option to ease some algorithmic optimisations but not in the dlight degrading performance way but just equal in performance than hand way (if such kind of support is possible) anyway as i maybe noted as it shows that for optymistation the crucial thing is not to increase throughput for all code branches but just for the heavy loop so the gpu centralised approach may be more future than the separate cores thus it could be maybe be handy to have support for VRAM and GPU internals just from the c source level - so this is maybe a way, add c-spirit fine control on gpu to the c ground, i will be working on this probably too though it is quite new thing)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QbOvw.390999$BB2.344330@fx35.am4> |
| In reply to | #56544 |
fir wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff > napisał: >> C is a programming language. >> The speed of light in vacuum is c. >> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > > asm is faster It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. Case matters. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-21 06:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a98a4fec-12e2-4ee5-ad8f-7e48086245e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56547 |
W dniu środa, 21 stycznia 2015 14:54:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > fir wrote: > > > W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff > > napisał: > >> C is a programming language. > >> The speed of light in vacuum is c. > >> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > > > > asm is faster > > It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the > programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. > > Case matters. > i asked you to stay away insulter, (with such vise remarks, oh my) do you want to make your shit game longer, again? i propose get back really
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 15:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m9r03t$3ev$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56548 |
On 21/01/15 15:03, fir wrote: > W dniu środa, 21 stycznia 2015 14:54:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: >> fir wrote: >> >>> W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff >>> napisał: >>>> C is a programming language. >>>> The speed of light in vacuum is c. >>>> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. >>> >>> asm is faster >> >> It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the >> programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. >> >> Case matters. >> > > i asked you to stay away insulter, (with such vise remarks, oh my) > > do you want to make your shit game longer, again? i propose get back really > You are new to Usenet, aren't you? You don't get to decide who posts what, or who answers your questions and how they do it. If a poster is seriously rude and insulting (like /you/ have been in many posts), you can complain to that poster's ISP. Other than that, posts like your one here just make people laugh at you and treat you like a spoiled teenager. Richard is a respected long-term member of this group, with a reputation for being generally helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, and occasionally witty and sarcastic (he is British, after all). You, on the other hand, are building a reputation for being a surly, arrogant and asocial teenager, who puts more effort into insulting people and alienating the experts in this group than you do into learning about C and programming. This is a shame, because you clearly have some interesting ideas and questions - but as long as you choose to fight everyone else, you will not get on well here or anywhere else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 06:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6addfbb3-1c14-4cfb-9e8f-bcecfe2bf2bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56561 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015 15:06:29 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > On 21/01/15 15:03, fir wrote: > > W dniu środa, 21 stycznia 2015 14:54:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > >> fir wrote: > >> > >>> W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff > >>> napisał: > >>>> C is a programming language. > >>>> The speed of light in vacuum is c. > >>>> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > >>> > >>> asm is faster > >> > >> It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the > >> programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. > >> > >> Case matters. > >> > > > > i asked you to stay away insulter, (with such vise remarks, oh my) > > > > do you want to make your shit game longer, again? i propose get back really > > > > You are new to Usenet, aren't you? You don't get to decide who posts > what, or who answers your questions and how they do it. If a poster is > seriously rude and insulting (like /you/ have been in many posts), you > can complain to that poster's ISP. Other than that, posts like your one > here just make people laugh at you and treat you like a spoiled teenager. > > Richard is a respected long-term member of this group, with a reputation > for being generally helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, and occasionally > witty and sarcastic (he is British, after all). You, on the other hand, > are building a reputation for being a surly, arrogant and asocial > teenager, who puts more effort into insulting people and alienating the > experts in this group than you do into learning about C and programming. > This is a shame, because you clearly have some interesting ideas and > questions - but as long as you choose to fight everyone else, you will > not get on well here or anywhere else. bla bla bla, you could blalbla yourself to death, but please the insulting dick teacher with his getta stay out of me, really (i fing thuis guy as a very primitive one and want to drown in his aggresive shit anymore) You could also stay out, i would be pleassed (you bore ma and waste my time)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8aba086b-4a1e-44c5-bee8-97801769fabf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56566 |
On Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:57:41 UTC, fir wrote: > bla bla bla, you could blalbla yourself to death, but please the insulting dick teacher with his getta stay out of me, really > (i fing thuis guy as a very primitive one and want to drown in his aggresive shit anymore) > > You could also stay out, i would be pleassed (you bore ma and waste my time) I have a suggestion. If you don't like the way this newsgroup operates, go somewhere that suits you better or set up your own forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ada1508-51c1-4f1c-99a2-dd1b73f52041@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56568 |
W dniu czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015 16:27:13 UTC+1 użytkownik mark.b...@gmail.com napisał: > On Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:57:41 UTC, fir wrote: > > > bla bla bla, you could blalbla yourself to death, but please the insulting dick teacher with his getta stay out of me, really > > (i fing thuis guy as a very primitive one and want to drown in his aggresive shit anymore) > > > > You could also stay out, i would be pleassed (you bore ma and waste my time) > > I have a suggestion. If you don't like the way this newsgroup operates, go somewhere that suits you better or set up your own forum. I allso have a suggestion for viser and less dumb and more high spirit suggestions - otherwise stay out W dniu czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015 15:57:41 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu czwartek, 22 stycznia 2015 15:06:29 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > On 21/01/15 15:03, fir wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 21 stycznia 2015 14:54:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > >> fir wrote: > > >> > > >>> W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Geoff > > >>> napisał: > > >>>> C is a programming language. > > >>>> The speed of light in vacuum is c. > > >>>> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. > > >>> > > >>> asm is faster > > >> > > >> It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the > > >> programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. > > >> > > >> Case matters. > > >> > > > > > > i asked you to stay away insulter, (with such vise remarks, oh my) > > > > > > do you want to make your shit game longer, again? i propose get back really > > > > > > > You are new to Usenet, aren't you? You don't get to decide who posts > > what, or who answers your questions and how they do it. If a poster is > > seriously rude and insulting (like /you/ have been in many posts), you > > can complain to that poster's ISP. Other than that, posts like your one > > here just make people laugh at you and treat you like a spoiled teenager. > > > > Richard is a respected long-term member of this group, with a reputation > > for being generally helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, and occasionally > > witty and sarcastic (he is British, after all). You, on the other hand, > > are building a reputation for being a surly, arrogant and asocial > > teenager, who puts more effort into insulting people and alienating the > > experts in this group than you do into learning about C and programming. > > This is a shame, because you clearly have some interesting ideas and > > questions - but as long as you choose to fight everyone else, you will > > not get on well here or anywhere else. > > bla bla bla, you could blalbla yourself to death, but please the insulting dick teacher with his getta stay out of me, really > (i fing thuis guy as a very primitive one and want to drown in his aggresive shit anymore) > > You could also stay out, i would be pleassed (you bore ma and waste my time) take care what it will be look like otherwise, You or Richard will produce sh*t i will then produce re-sh*t and it will just trash the forum taking your dumb sh*t is not an option, trashing this forum with answers like "get away dork" is also weak option. better jus stay out
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 07:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c682e097-4bd5-40b8-9611-4d2fce95f5d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56569 |
(some dorks are ofc so dumb they do not even understand such simple message, they will then argue why should not get away, or I just should get away becouse they rule here ;-) huh, really weak stuff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-24 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn1tkdej09.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #56561 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 21/01/15 15:03, fir wrote: >> W dniu ?roda, 21 stycznia 2015 14:54:02 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Richard Heathfield napisa?: >>> fir wrote: >>> >>>> W dniu niedziela, 11 stycznia 2015 09:21:28 UTC+1 u?ytkownik Geoff >>>> napisa?: >>>>> C is a programming language. >>>>> The speed of light in vacuum is c. >>>>> C is not faster than c. Nothing is faster than c. >>>> >>>> asm is faster >>> >>> It may or may not be faster than C, depending on the skills of the >>> programmers involved, but it is most certainly not faster than c. >>> >>> Case matters. >> >> i asked you to stay away insulter, (with such vise remarks, oh my) >> >> do you want to make your shit game longer, again? i propose get >> back really > > You are new to Usenet, aren't you? You don't get to decide who posts > what, or who answers your questions and how they do it. If a poster is > seriously rude and insulting (like /you/ have been in many posts), you > can complain to that poster's ISP. Other than that, posts like your one > here just make people laugh at you and treat you like a spoiled teenager. > > Richard is a respected long-term member of this group, with a reputation > for being generally helpful, friendly, knowledgeable, and occasionally > witty and sarcastic [snip] Or at least vice versa...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8ulm8$lhr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56134 |
On 10/01/15 22:11, fir wrote: > there are some languages that are low level like c (i dont know them > to much, if any, i dont know pascal? fortran? forth? cobol? algol?) I > mean some languages that could teoretically compete with c in > efficiency.. do maybe some of such language some solution that make > the outcome program to be faster (or equally speed but with different > solution) comparing to c? I never heard of that, but i dont know such > languages.. If not faster maybe some other solutions that could be > interesying? (sorry if question is not apprpriate, if question is not > appropriate, skip it, [i dont want to waste anybodys time with not > proper topics, but i assume they can be just skipped in such case]) > For general programming, C is considered the "gold standard" for speed. There are not many situations where you cannot write C code that is as fast or faster than code in other languages - the exception being when you can use assembly for particular specialised cases. However, just because you /can/ write code that is faster in C, does not mean that you can write good, clear, flexible and maintainable code in C that is faster than in other languages. It has been mentioned that Fortran can be faster than C for some types of code - often you /could/ write just as fast code in C, but it may get uglier or require compiler-specific switches or extensions in order to achieve the performance. When staying with good, clear code, then C++ can be faster for some sorts of code - especially if the algorithm can make use of C++ features such as virtual functions, as a C++ compiler will usually handle them faster than a C emulation of them. And the use of templates can help make specialised functions that outperform general C functions designed to handle multiple types (such as for data structures or sorting algorithms). There are also situations where JIT compiled languages can beat statically compiled languages, by creating specialised functions on the fly that match particular use-cases. This leads systems like PyPy (Python combined with a JIT compiler) executing faster than C code. Staying with Python, you can also find that well-written Python can be faster than well-written C, even when compiled - /if/ most of the work is done by the highly optimised code in the Python libraries and interpreter. For example, Python contains some very high efficiency sorting and filtering algorithms - they will not beat similarly high-speed code in a C library, but /will/ beat most self-written sorting code or standard C qsort() implementations in many cases. If development time is of no concern, C will beat Python - but if development time is a factor, Python code could be the most efficient. (The same argument applies to many other languages, of course - and in the other direction when comparing C and assembly.) One of the few languages that seems to outperform C in some tests in language shootouts, is ocaml.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-11 15:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <chg5igFdcf8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #56134 |
On 1/10/2015 4:11 PM, fir wrote: > there are some languages that are low level like c (i dont know them to much, if any, i dont know pascal? fortran? forth? cobol? algol?) I mean some languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) comparing to c? I never heard of that, but i dont know such languages.. If not faster maybe some other solutions that could be interesying? > (sorry if question is not apprpriate, if question is not appropriate, skip it, [i dont want to waste anybodys time with not proper topics, but i assume they can be just skipped in such case]) > > > > As others said, Fortran makes it easier to optimize than C. In C, you often need to go to the extra effort to take advantage of restrict or (slightly non-standard) __restrict pointers and choose a compiler which optimizes on the basis of the typed aliasing rules. Link-time optimizations (under at least 3 different names in various C compilers) may overcome some of the limitations. If your ground rules are not to take advantage of anything not supported by all available C compilers, these features are excluded. The question can easily become inappropriate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-14 12:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9bf4b924-da7f-4073-8a23-40cdf7466a04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56134 |
On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 1:11:12 PM UTC-8, fir wrote: > there are some languages that are low level like c (i dont know them to much, if any, i dont know pascal? fortran? forth? cobol? algol?) I mean some languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) comparing to c? I never heard of that, but i dont know such languages.. If not faster maybe some other solutions that could be interesying? > (sorry if question is not apprpriate, if question is not appropriate, skip it, [i dont want to waste anybodys time with not proper topics, but i assume they can be just skipped in such case]) There is a theoretical answer and a practical one. The theoretical answer is that a number of those languages that you mention *COULD* compete with C for efficiency. As a practical matter, (except in highly constrained embedded cases) we have to get the results out of the computer or report on their progress, so absolute efficiency may not be as important as other factors. I have said that we will always need one language for "discovery" of solutions and another for implementation of solutions once known. In fact, the better that you make a discovery language, the worse it gets for implementation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 13:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmbkoug.3ps.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56134 |
On Sat, 2015-01-10, fir wrote: > there are some languages that are low level like c [...] I mean some > languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do > maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome > program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) > comparing to c? I have a hard time parsing your question, but C++ tends to be faster than C. Plenty of other languages are faster, in specialized cases. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 05:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36fc5cb6-8738-4ca2-ae24-02c6a77cef34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56368 |
W dniu sobota, 17 stycznia 2015 14:30:06 UTC+1 użytkownik Jorgen Grahn napisał: > On Sat, 2015-01-10, fir wrote: > > > there are some languages that are low level like c [...] I mean some > > languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do > > maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome > > program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) > > comparing to c? > > I have a hard time parsing your question, but C++ tends to be faster > than C. > i doubt it > Plenty of other languages are faster, in specialized cases. > could hear about this cases..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20150117144206.5689a170@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #56368 |
On 17 Jan 2015 13:29:52 GMT Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > On Sat, 2015-01-10, fir wrote: > > > there are some languages that are low level like c [...] I mean some > > languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do > > maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome > > program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) > > comparing to c? > > I have a hard time parsing your question, but C++ tends to be faster > than C. How so? Speed should be same and C++ has additional bloat. Lot of bloat... > > Plenty of other languages are faster, in specialized cases. > Talk about *implementations* please. This implementation of language X is faster than that implementation of language Y in this benchmark, particular case. > /Jorgen >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-17 19:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmbldvt.3ps.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #56370 |
On Sat, 2015-01-17, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 17 Jan 2015 13:29:52 GMT > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > >> On Sat, 2015-01-10, fir wrote: >> >> > there are some languages that are low level like c [...] I mean some >> > languages that could teoretically compete with c in efficiency.. do >> > maybe some of such language some solution that make the outcome >> > program to be faster (or equally speed but with different solution) >> > comparing to c? >> >> I have a hard time parsing your question, but C++ tends to be faster >> than C. > > How so? Speed should be same and C++ has additional bloat. Lot of > bloat... By all means, keep telling yourself that. >> Plenty of other languages are faster, in specialized cases. >> > > Talk about *implementations* please. This implementation of > language X is faster than that implementation of language Y > in this benchmark, particular case. Fortran for numerics has already been mentioned. Surely this is common knowledge, that Fortran allows the compiler author to do things a C compiler author cannot easily do? But yes of course a poor implementation of Fortran will be beaten by a good C compiler. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web