Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #91178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 16:42 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 01:47 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 00:43 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 05:41 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:02 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 06:26 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:45 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 09:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:30 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 14:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 01:14 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 11:37 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:51 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-29 08:36 -0600
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 05:32 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 14:42 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 06:59 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 16:08 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-29 09:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 17:55 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:00 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:48 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 21:12 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 19:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:54 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 10:30 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 07:34 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 14:10 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 23:36 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-30 11:22 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-30 01:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:08 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 21:16 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-02 13:33 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:36 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:19 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 11:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 11:49 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 12:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 13:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 14:05 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 10:50 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-28 10:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 16:50 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:18 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 14:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 16:04 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-01 09:26 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 10:12 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 10:21 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 11:01 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-02 12:05 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-01 15:48 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-08-02 20:09 -0400
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 06:42 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-03 03:15 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 11:53 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-03 10:52 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:09 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-03 08:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 10:51 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 13:13 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:27 -0700
Setting architectural features in stone Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-08-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-02 10:29 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 16:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 16:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-04 16:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-04 23:52 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 03:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:48 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 20:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-05 13:09 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:25 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 19:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:47 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:11 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 19:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 22:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:06 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:04 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:24 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:30 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:11 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:02 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:35 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:07 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:22 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-08 13:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:54 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 15:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 09:14 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:22 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-09 11:12 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-09 15:25 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 16:44 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:38 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 20:06 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:57 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:15 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-08 11:57 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 23:04 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 15:20 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:27 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:21 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 17:33 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 14:35 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 14:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 14:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 13:53 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:08 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:34 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-07 19:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:31 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 03:55 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 08:28 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 09:44 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 10:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:39 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 08:38 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:40 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 21:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 00:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:49 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 10:01 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:57 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 09:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 09:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 11:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-28 15:19 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:25 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 07:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:17 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 14:17 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 18:43 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 18:58 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-31 21:46 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:37 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 10:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no7f2n$ltj$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91839 |
On 8/6/2016 11:07 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:49:03 AM UTC+1, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/6/2016 6:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:00:33 PM UTC+1, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >>>> Manufacturers do not dedicate a chip (even a fifty cent one) to such a >>>> trivial example. And many of the operations in an automobile are more >>>> complicated than the average Windows program. >>>> >>> You can build an AND gate electrically. >>> But it's easier just to use a chip. Then we can tweak the various >>> threshold values simply be changing numbers in the software rather >>> then by redesigning the electronics. >>> >> >> Which has absolutely what to do with this discussion? >> > The modern way is chips with everything. > When I was little, my parents had a non-digital central heating > control. It consisted of a clock with four little sliders around > the circle. These caused electrical connections to be made or > broken as the dial rotated. > So you always had to have two periods of heating on, and two > periods of heating off. My parents didn't want that, so the > heating went off for a few minutes at midday, the slider > moved to its minimum setting. Then it was off during the night. > > But now I have my own system, and its electronic. So it's got > a little chip which drives a time display. But the logic is > essentially the same - you just set time periods for heating > on and periods for heating off. The data processing it is actually > doing could hardly be more simple. But the boiler cost well over > five hundred pounds and costs hundreds more pounds in gas, water, > and servicing charges. The chip in the control panel accounts for > very little of that. You can get an 8 bit MCU for between about > 50 and 70 cents, and that's in small batches, probably less to > a large customer. > > So you can essentially use them at will in any product that > retails for more than a few dollars. Even if all it is really > doing is to act as glorified on/off switch. > Which once again has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but you can't understand that. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <no1s5i$7r5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91696 |
On 05/08/16 02:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/4/2016 7:07 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> There are more of those platforms out there than those which meet the >>> limitations you would put on C. You would be limiting C to maybe 10% of >>> the MPUs and MCUs in use today (if not even fewer). >> >> Do you mean physical machines or architectures? Can you identify some of >> the supposed 90% of the marketplace that I'm ignoring? >> > > Both. DSPs are a start. So are most of the MCUs and many of the CPUs > used in embedded systems - such as the computers controlling the various > systems in your automobile. > I am curious as to which architectures you are thinking of that are so commonplace, and which do not have CHAR_BIT == 8. (Or are you thinking of other limitations of Supercat's "commonplace C"?) I have not worked on car electronics, but I have used (or am at least familiar with) a good many microcontrollers that /are/ used in cars - as well as in many other places around the home, industry, in gadgets, etc. Cars usually have a number of powerful processors handling things like engine control. Typical cpus for this would be 32-bit PowerPC or other 32-bit RISC architectures. Peripheral processors might be 8-bit or 16-bit devices, with 32-bit (especially ARM) becoming more prevalent. Entertainment systems, maps, etc., will be 32-bit or 64-bit, again usually ARM but possibly another RISC architecture. There may still be a few 4-bit devices in use for things like tire pressure monitors, but these are not programmed in C. The only devices that have CHAR_BIT != 8 that you are likely to find would be specialised coprocessors such as the eTPU that often use pre-generated software from the manufacturer, and perhaps a DSP or two in the music system. Even in the DSP world, it is becoming rarer to see people working on systems with CHAR_BIT > 8. There are three reasons for this. One is that DSPs with CHAR_BIT == 8, such as the Blackfin, are getting proportionally more popular - people pick these with the intention of also doing non-DSP tasks on the same device, and that's easier with support for more conventional development. Secondly, people using the more powerful DSP's like SHARC's or TI's DSPs are using pre-made programs rather than writing their own software - development costs are too high, it is very difficult to get the highest throughput on such devices, and licensing and patent bureaucracy makes it far simpler and cheaper to buy ready-made software. Thirdly, conventional processors with SIMD or DSP extensions are fast enough for many traditional DSP tasks, while being cheaper and easier to work with. I am well aware that there is an extraordinary number of microcontrollers around us in all sorts of places, and these greatly outnumber the x86 or other "visible" processors. But apart from 4-bit devices (which were once dominant in absolute numbers, but are far from that now), I don't see any significant (more than a few percent) number of CHAR_BIT > 8 devices around. But if I am wrong, and you have examples of common CHAR_BIT > 8 architectures or links to statistics, I'd be very interested to hear about them. And if the "90%" figure was about microcontrollers that break a different one of Supercat's "commonplace C" rules, then please say which rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 13:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no2iu3$ni3$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91716 |
On 8/5/2016 7:09 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 05/08/16 02:38, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/4/2016 7:07 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:37:44 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >>>> There are more of those platforms out there than those which meet the >>>> limitations you would put on C. You would be limiting C to maybe 10% of >>>> the MPUs and MCUs in use today (if not even fewer). >>> >>> Do you mean physical machines or architectures? Can you identify some of >>> the supposed 90% of the marketplace that I'm ignoring? >>> >> >> Both. DSPs are a start. So are most of the MCUs and many of the CPUs >> used in embedded systems - such as the computers controlling the various >> systems in your automobile. >> > > I am curious as to which architectures you are thinking of that are so > commonplace, and which do not have CHAR_BIT == 8. (Or are you thinking > of other limitations of Supercat's "commonplace C"?) > Most DSPs use 10-14 bits, for instance. Some even more. > I have not worked on car electronics, but I have used (or am at least > familiar with) a good many microcontrollers that /are/ used in cars - as > well as in many other places around the home, industry, in gadgets, etc. > > Cars usually have a number of powerful processors handling things like > engine control. Typical cpus for this would be 32-bit PowerPC or other > 32-bit RISC architectures. Peripheral processors might be 8-bit or > 16-bit devices, with 32-bit (especially ARM) becoming more prevalent. > Entertainment systems, maps, etc., will be 32-bit or 64-bit, again > usually ARM but possibly another RISC architecture. There may still be > a few 4-bit devices in use for things like tire pressure monitors, but > these are not programmed in C. > Actually, automobile manufactures are getting away from those powerful processors and going with smaller dedicated MCUs - mainly due to cost - not only of the processor, but of manufacturing the electronics. > The only devices that have CHAR_BIT != 8 that you are likely to find > would be specialised coprocessors such as the eTPU that often use > pre-generated software from the manufacturer, and perhaps a DSP or two > in the music system. > That was true several years ago, but less now. And there is no such thing as "pre-generated software". Software must be written by someone. > Even in the DSP world, it is becoming rarer to see people working on > systems with CHAR_BIT > 8. There are three reasons for this. One is > that DSPs with CHAR_BIT == 8, such as the Blackfin, are getting > proportionally more popular - people pick these with the intention of > also doing non-DSP tasks on the same device, and that's easier with > support for more conventional development. Secondly, people using the > more powerful DSP's like SHARC's or TI's DSPs are using pre-made > programs rather than writing their own software - development costs are > too high, it is very difficult to get the highest throughput on such > devices, and licensing and patent bureaucracy makes it far simpler and > cheaper to buy ready-made software. Thirdly, conventional processors > with SIMD or DSP extensions are fast enough for many traditional DSP > tasks, while being cheaper and easier to work with. > I'm not sure which DSP chips you're working with, but more and more consumer electronics are using CHAR_BIT of 10, 12 and even 14 or more. People are wanting better audio quality than is available in 8 bit chips, even in automobile electronics. And not only that, but places where audio quality is not so much of a concern are using wider chips because they can do more signal processing. Also, if development costs were "too high", no one would be writing software any more. Any manufacturer of decent equipment wants software written to their own specs on the chips, and when spread across hundreds of thousands or millions of units, one-time development costs are small when compared to manufacturing costs. > > I am well aware that there is an extraordinary number of > microcontrollers around us in all sorts of places, and these greatly > outnumber the x86 or other "visible" processors. But apart from 4-bit > devices (which were once dominant in absolute numbers, but are far from > that now), I don't see any significant (more than a few percent) number > of CHAR_BIT > 8 devices around. > They are there - in embedded systems that you don't see unless you're working with them. > > But if I am wrong, and you have examples of common CHAR_BIT > 8 > architectures or links to statistics, I'd be very interested to hear > about them. And if the "90%" figure was about microcontrollers that > break a different one of Supercat's "commonplace C" rules, then please > say which rules. > > > But then I know you'll contradict anything I say. That's how you are. And you NEVER admit you are wrong - even you are proven so. So none of your tripe surprises me. It just proves how out of touch you are with the embedded world. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e92fa13-208f-4c17-93de-ad5d4a066ee2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91748 |
On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:38:22 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I'm not sure which DSP chips you're working with, but more and more > consumer electronics are using CHAR_BIT of 10, 12 and even 14 or more. > People are wanting better audio quality than is available in 8 bit > chips, even in automobile electronics. And not only that, but places > where audio quality is not so much of a concern are using wider chips > because they can do more signal processing. Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many advantages for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any new 24-bit designs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 15:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no2pd2$f01$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91754 |
On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:38:22 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> I'm not sure which DSP chips you're working with, but more and more >> consumer electronics are using CHAR_BIT of 10, 12 and even 14 or more. >> People are wanting better audio quality than is available in 8 bit >> chips, even in automobile electronics. And not only that, but places >> where audio quality is not so much of a concern are using wider chips >> because they can do more signal processing. > > Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of > anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet > for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years > back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many advantages > for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any new > 24-bit designs. > It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. But I do know of engineers which do. And I think they know what they're talking about. One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. And going to a 32 bit processor requires at least a 4 layer, and often 5 or six layer board. That is a significant increase in cost over a two layer (top/bottom) board which can be used in many 10 and 12 bit DSPs. The extra cost adds up and is unnecessary when all you need is 10 or 12 bits. Additionally, it adds size to the board, which can also be important (and more costly). Finally, power consumption is higher. Companies use what they need. And it is not a "small increase in cost" - especially when you are talking millions of units. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 08:25 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0kb21FhhdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91761 |
On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> >> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of >> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet >> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many advantages >> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any new >> 24-bit designs. >> > > It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. In other words, no. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 16:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no2tbs$spj$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91767 |
On 8/5/2016 4:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>> >>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of >>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet >>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>> advantages >>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any >>> new >>> 24-bit designs. >>> >> >> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. > > In other words, no. > IOW, I know they are out there. But I don't have exact chip numbers handy. Do you? Or are you just trolling - like always? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 08:41 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0kc08FhhdU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91768 |
On 08/ 6/16 08:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/5/2016 4:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of >>>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet >>>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >>>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>>> advantages >>>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any >>>> new >>>> 24-bit designs. >>>> >>> >>> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. >> >> In other words, no. >> > > IOW, I know they are out there. But I don't have exact chip numbers > handy. Do you? For the parts we use, yes. You don't need to provide exact chip numbers, just chip families will do. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 16:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no2tss$udn$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91769 |
On 8/5/2016 4:41 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 6/16 08:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/5/2016 4:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT >>>>> value of >>>>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data >>>>> sheet >>>>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >>>>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>>>> advantages >>>>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any >>>>> new >>>>> 24-bit designs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. >>> >>> In other words, no. >>> >> >> IOW, I know they are out there. But I don't have exact chip numbers >> handy. Do you? > > For the parts we use, yes. You don't need to provide exact chip > numbers, just chip families will do. > So you don't have anything positive to add to the thread. You are just trolling - as usual. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 09:41 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0kffgFhhdU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91770 |
On 08/ 6/16 08:45 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/5/2016 4:41 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 08/ 6/16 08:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 8/5/2016 4:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT >>>>>> value of >>>>>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data >>>>>> sheet >>>>>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >>>>>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>>>>> advantages >>>>>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any >>>>>> new >>>>>> 24-bit designs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. >>>> >>>> In other words, no. >>>> >>> >>> IOW, I know they are out there. But I don't have exact chip numbers >>> handy. Do you? >> >> For the parts we use, yes. You don't need to provide exact chip >> numbers, just chip families will do. >> > > So you don't have anything positive to add to the thread. Getting you to back up one of your unsubstantiated claims would be a positive contribution to the thread -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 19:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no38eo$12u$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91776 |
On 8/5/2016 5:41 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 6/16 08:45 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/5/2016 4:41 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 08/ 6/16 08:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2016 4:25 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>>> On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT >>>>>>> value of >>>>>>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data >>>>>>> sheet >>>>>>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some >>>>>>> years >>>>>>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>>>>>> advantages >>>>>>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> new >>>>>>> 24-bit designs. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. >>>>> >>>>> In other words, no. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IOW, I know they are out there. But I don't have exact chip numbers >>>> handy. Do you? >>> >>> For the parts we use, yes. You don't need to provide exact chip >>> numbers, just chip families will do. >>> >> >> So you don't have anything positive to add to the thread. > > Getting you to back up one of your unsubstantiated claims would be a > positive contribution to the thread > And I'm not about to cater to a troll. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and even if I gave you a link to the data sheet for a chip, you wouldn't have the intelligence to understand what it says. So get lost, troll. You're not worth the trouble. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 09:47 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0kfrhFhhdU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91761 |
On 08/ 6/16 07:28 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > And going to a 32 bit processor requires at least a 4 layer, and often 5 > or six layer board. This is also nonsense by the way: there are plenty of ARM based micros in very small packages that can be used on a double sided board. The STM32 family are a good examples. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 16:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lh0a6ifr.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #91761 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know > which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 21:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no644n$21p$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91816 |
On 8/6/2016 11:11 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know >> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. > > So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately > familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". > No, I didn't say my engineering friends were intimately familiar with it. But they are familiar with it. And I didn't have to google for it. > Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a > 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, > and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, > but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars. > No, but in this case it does. Power utilization and size are critical in it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53e74085-934e-4b3c-9dce-5dbce8a06dc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91836 |
On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:50:20 AM UTC+1, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/6/2016 11:11 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > > > >> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know > >> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. > > > > So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately > > familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". > > > > No, I didn't say my engineering friends were intimately familiar with > it. But they are familiar with it. And I didn't have to google for it. > > > Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a > > 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, > > and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, > > but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars. > > > > No, but in this case it does. Power utilization and size are critical > in it. > What do you need a digital to analogue converter for in a camera? Obviously you'll need an analogue to digital, but what goes the other way?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 22:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no66uu$9mb$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91837 |
On 8/6/2016 10:12 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, August 7, 2016 at 2:50:20 AM UTC+1, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/6/2016 11:11 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know >>>> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. >>> >>> So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately >>> familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". >>> >> >> No, I didn't say my engineering friends were intimately familiar with >> it. But they are familiar with it. And I didn't have to google for it. >> >>> Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a >>> 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, >>> and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, >>> but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars. >>> >> >> No, but in this case it does. Power utilization and size are critical >> in it. >> > What do you need a digital to analogue converter for in a camera? > Obviously you'll need an analogue to digital, but what goes the > other way? > This is an analog camera with digital signal processing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 14:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zioon2xr.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #91837 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > What do you need a digital to analogue converter for in a camera? > Obviously you'll need an analogue to digital, but what goes the > other way? You're right. I said DAC, but meant ADC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 10:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no7f5g$ltj$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91851 |
On 8/7/2016 9:06 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> What do you need a digital to analogue converter for in a camera? >> Obviously you'll need an analogue to digital, but what goes the >> other way? > > You're right. I said DAC, but meant ADC. > Except it also has a DAC because it is an analog camera. It digitizes the video, processes it, then converts it back to analog. So you were right on the DAC, after all. It has both. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 17:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <no7k0f$70n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91836 |
On 07/08/16 03:50, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/6/2016 11:11 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >> >>> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know >>> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. >> >> So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately >> familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". >> > > No, I didn't say my engineering friends were intimately familiar with > it. But they are familiar with it. And I didn't have to google for it. > >> Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a >> 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, >> and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, >> but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars. >> > > No, but in this case it does. Power utilization and size are critical > in it. > It was a specialist DSP for a particular type of camera, made some 15 years ago. There is no indication that it is programmed in C at all - I would be very surprised if that were the case. So, when asked to back up your claims about 90% of the devices around us being microcontrollers or DSP's, with C but with CHAR_BIT != 8 (or even a multiple of 8), your own example is an ancient assembly-programmed device that was used in high-end studio cameras, and you found it by googling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 20:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h9awgz5g.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #91862 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > So, when asked to back up your claims about 90% of the devices around > us being microcontrollers or DSP's, with C but with CHAR_BIT != 8 (or > even a multiple of 8), your own example is an ancient > assembly-programmed device that was used in high-end studio cameras, > and you found it by googling. That would seem to summarise the situation nicely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web