Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #66125 > unrolled thread

Generic function-calling code

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-21 21:21 +0100
    Re: Generic function-calling code jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-07-21 23:04 +0200
      Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 14:45 -0700
        Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 00:56 +0100
          Re: Generic function-calling code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:25 -0500
            Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 02:37 -0700
              Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 11:50 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 04:29 -0700
                  Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 13:04 +0100
                    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 05:44 -0700
                AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 12:50 +0000
                  Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:07 -0700
                    Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 13:30 +0000
                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 07:42 -0700
                        Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-22 17:07 +0200
                          Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 08:16 -0700
                          Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 08:41 -0700
                            Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 08:47 -0700
                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 08:53 -0700
                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-22 18:09 +0200
                            Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:38 -0700
                          Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 18:28 +0100
                            Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-22 13:37 -0400
                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:04 -0500
                            Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:39 -0700
                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 19:10 +0100
                                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:39 -0700
                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 20:01 +0100
                                    Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 12:06 -0700
                                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 20:51 +0100
                                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:48 -0700
                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 19:50 +0000
                                    Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 13:15 -0700
                                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:28 +0100
                                        Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 +0100
                                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-07-22 16:35 -0500
                                        Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:17 -0700
                                          Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-09-05 15:20 -0500
                                            Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 23:01 -0700
                                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) wssimms@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 01:58 -0700
                                                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 02:28 -0700
                                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 12:48 -0700
                                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic gordonb.u38i6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-09-20 01:13 -0500
                                                    Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-20 07:19 +0100
                                                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 07:08 -0700
                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-22 13:50 -0700
                              Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:43 +0100
                                Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:43 -0700
                                  Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-24 10:41 -0400
                                    Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:01 +0100
                                      Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 19:20 +0000
                                    Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 20:25 +0100
                        Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-23 20:41 +0200
                          Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 -0700
                  Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 17:43 +0100
                    Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 19:36 +0000
                      Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 23:19 +0100
                        Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 15:43 -0700
                        Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 23:47 +0100
                          Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 04:44 -0700
                            Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 13:14 +0100
                              Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 06:26 -0700
                                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 15:00 +0100
                                  Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 07:13 -0700
                              Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 18:02 +0100
                                Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:05 -0700
                                  Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 18:19 +0100
                                    Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:37 -0700
                                  Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 23:29 +0100
                          Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-23 16:18 +0000
                Re: Generic function-calling code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-24 01:21 -0400
            Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 13:23 +0100
              Re: Generic function-calling code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-23 07:44 +1200
                Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-22 22:24 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:29 -0700
        Re: Generic function-calling code luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:32 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-21 15:38 -0700
    Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 17:26 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-22 14:27 +1200
    Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-22 02:39 +0000
    Re: Generic function-calling code Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-07-23 09:28 +0200
    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 19:04 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code owen.jacobson@grimoire.ca - 2015-07-24 08:32 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-24 18:48 +0000
      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 20:22 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-25 03:03 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 13:32 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 23:28 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 06:18 -0700
          Re: Generic function-calling code gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-26 13:39 +0000
            Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 07:33 -0700
              Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 16:21 +0100
                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 08:39 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 05:37 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 14:36 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 06:46 -0700
          Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 16:11 +0100
            Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 08:20 -0700
    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 16:53 -0700
      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 01:03 +0100
        Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 05:36 -0700
          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 06:35 -0700
            Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 06:43 -0700
            Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-30 15:10 +0100
              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 08:59 -0700
                Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 10:54 -0700
                  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 10:57 -0700
                    Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:13 -0700
                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:16 -0700
                        Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:59 -0700
                          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 12:15 -0700
                            Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 12:57 -0700
                              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 13:40 -0700
                    Re: Generic function-calling code Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 11:15 -0700
                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 11:28 -0700
                        Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-30 20:11 +0100
                          Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-30 22:28 +0200
                          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 01:13 -0700
                            Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 00:40 -0700
                              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 01:26 -0700
                                Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 11:34 +0200
                                  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:15 -0700
                                    Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 03:21 -0700
                                    Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:07 +0200
                                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:30 -0700
                                        Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:39 +0200
                                          Re: Generic function-calling code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 07:20 -0700
                                            Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 20:25 +0200
                                              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:30 -0700
                                                Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:44 -0700
                                  Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 11:21 +0100
                                    Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 13:19 +0200
                                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:51 -0700
                                        Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 14:31 +0200
                                          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 05:57 -0700
                                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:56 -0700
                                        Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 14:53 +0200
                                          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:08 -0700
                                            Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 15:18 +0200
                                              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 06:30 -0700
                                                Re: Generic function-calling code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 10:09 -0500
                                                  Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 08:59 -0700
                                                Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:37 -0700
                                        Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:31 -0700
                                          Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:07 -0700
                                            Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 20:42 +0200
                                              Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:49 -0700
                                    Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:25 -0700
                                      Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 16:46 +0100
                                      Re: Generic function-calling code "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 09:02 -0700
                                Re: Generic function-calling code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-04 04:04 +0000
                          Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 00:36 -0700
                            Re: Generic function-calling code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-03 16:29 +0100
                              Re: Generic function-calling code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-09-03 08:45 -0700
                              Re: Generic function-calling code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-03 22:33 +0200

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#69592 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:58:40 AM UTC+1, wss...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Seems kind of odd to me that God would make eternal salvation
> dependent on knowing and believing the right doctrine without
> providing some way for people to have absolute assurance what
> that doctrine is.
>
Let's put this back on topic.
Can we interpret the C standard to mean what we want. Can I say that, within
the "penumbra of meaning" of the definition of int, there's requirement that
an int be able to index any array (thus any int that is not 64 bits on a machine
with more the 2GB address space is non-conforming).
Or is there some restriction? If so, what is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69647 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> Can we interpret the C standard to mean what we want. Can I say that,
> within the "penumbra of meaning" of the definition of int, there's
> requirement that an int be able to index any array (thus any int that
> is not 64 bits on a machine with more the 2GB address space is
> non-conforming).

No.

> Or is there some restriction? If so, what is it?

There is not a restriction in the C standard that refutes your idea.
Rather, there is a lack of any stated restriction.  Implementations
are not required to make int wide enough to index any array,
therefore a conforming implementation can have, for example, a
32-bit int type *and* support arrays with more than 2**31 elements.
(In practice such implementations are common.)

More concretely, N1570 5.2.4.2.1 permits INT_MAX to be as small a
32767, and 5.2.4.1 requires support for objects of at least 65535
bytes for hosted implementations.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70966 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

>> Seems kind of odd to me that God would make eternal salvation

God is just another example of undefined behavior in comp.lang.c .
There is no mention of God in the Trinity of Holy Books:  the ISO
C standards often referred to as C90, C99, and C11.

> Can we interpret the C standard to mean what we want. Can I say that, within
> the "penumbra of meaning" of the definition of int, there's requirement that
> an int be able to index any array (thus any int that is not 64 bits on a machine
> with more the 2GB address space is non-conforming).
> Or is there some restriction? If so, what is it?

There is no guarantee that you will be able to allocate an array
of ints (or any other single object) that occupies more than 4G on
a 64-bit machine.

(a) If it's a 32-bit user process on a 64-bit machine, you don't
have the address space, which is limited to 4G or less inside
the user process.

(b) If the machine doesn't have more than 4G of RAM + backing
store - what's reserved for the OS, you can't allocate that
much.

(c) The OS may restrict the amount of memory given to any one user
process to a fraction of total available memory, for reasons such
as not having one process hog the entire machine and deadlock
prevention,

(d) The OS may limit contiguous allocations in size, especially 
if it has and uses segmented hardware, so although getting 24G
of memory may be easy, getting *contiguous* memory greater than
4G may be impossible.  (For an example of this, look at the memory
models of x86 machines where segments were limited to 64k and
all objects had to completely fit in a segment.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70967 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

gordonb.u38i6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>>> Seems kind of odd to me that God would make eternal salvation
>
> God is just another example of undefined behavior in comp.lang.c .

Where as in Fortran, God is real (unless explicitly declared otherwise)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#69615 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 4:58:40 AM UTC-4, wss...@gmail.com wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 6. September 2015 15:01:11 UTC+9 schrieb Rick C. Hodgin:
> > On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 4:20:44 PM UTC-4, Morris Dovey wrote:
> > > On 7/22/15 5:17 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > > > It is appointed unto men once to die, and then
> > > > the judgement. Jesus Christ sets men free from
> > > > that judgement, and gives them eternal life.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know when each of you will die, or when
> > > > I will die. None of us do, but I desire to speak
> > > > His words until that day. I do so because His
> > > > words are spirit, and they are life.
> > > >
> > > > I labor in this world for all who have an ear to
> > > > hear, that they may hear, believe, come out
> > > > from the world, and be saved.
> > > >
> > > > It is a mission of love, and it is to spare you
> > > > from the judgement that stands before you,
> > > > getting closer with each tick tock of the clock.
> > > >
> > > > It is a very important matter. Do not dismiss
> > > > the Lord, or His call on your life.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Rick C. Hodgin
> > > 
> > > whatever that means.
> > > Missed your good works in Thessaloniki last month.
> > > I'm guessing you think you're called to talk/type.
> > 
> > We are all called to go into the world and teach, and make disciples,
> > teaching them to obey all things whatsoever He has commanded, baptizing
> > them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  People
> > think that translated word "baptizing" there refers to water... I don't
> > think it does.  I believe it refers to the concept used in cooking, such
> > as you baptize pickles in some recipes, first dipping them in boiling
> > water, then in vinegar.  They come out changed through the immersion,
> > which I don't believe is only water immersion, but you are instead to
> > surround people with knowledge and example of the Father, Son, and the
> > Holy Ghost, immersing them in that knowledge, as it were.
> 
> It is fortunate then, I suppose...[snip]

I offer this as explanation to you wss...@gmail.com:

#1 -- I do believe in being baptized in water.  There are many other
      scriptures which convey that as a real act, and it is something
      that should be done.  It points a person back to a specific,
      and very humbling act, where they stand before God and man
      saying, "I do this today because of sin, and because I believe
      in Jesus Christ for the remission of sin"  And, in my experience,
      it's a real thing that has an impact from that day forward on
      your life.  I still have the VHS video of my 2004 baptism.

#2 -- Water baptism is not a requirement.  The thief on the cross was
      not baptized in water, yet Jesus told him that "this day you will
      be with me in paradise."

#3 -- Baptism in the great commission is provided for in the context
      of other scriptures which convey teaching, after Jesus reminds
      us that all power and authority in Heaven and on the Earth have
      been given to Him.  This means He is the Savior, has paid the
      price for sin, and is the fullest ruler now above all else,
      which means we are to be completely subjective to His call on
      our lives, which is exemplified in what He says:

      http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/28.htm
      Matthew 28:18+
      "18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
          given unto me in heaven and in earth.
      "19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
          the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
          Ghost:
      "20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
          commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the
          end of the world. Amen."

This also follows verse 17 which leads us into why He says this.  He
is giving us ways to overcome doubt ... by immersing us in Him
because it says elsewhere in scripture, "Faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God" (http://biblehub.com/romans/10-17.htm):

      Matthew 28:17
      "17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
          doubted."

In summary form:

      17 -- They saw Him (as God), but some doubted.
      18 -- All authority is His.
      19 -- We are to teach people, and baptize.
      20 -- We are to teach them to what I've commanded, and He
            is with us always.

This brings us to the concepts being conveyed:

      17 -- Certainty, uncertainty in some (Is it His -- question mark?)
      18 -- Declaration (It is His -- exclamation point!)
      19 -- Call to action (Go, teach, and baptize)
      20 -- Teach His commands, and He's with us, always.

So, in the great commission, He is addressing the needs of man in
living in this world.  The entire call of a Christian is toward
holiness, to repent of sin, to live in this world separate and
distinct from the rest of the world and their sinful behavior, not
to be partaking in evil or in sinful ends, but instead reproving
them, calling them out publicly, showing them for what they are
so that the light of God might shine on the darkness of that evil.

As such, His teaching is to go and make disciples.  These people
He commands us to reach are targeted for an end goal:  discipleship.
Disciples of Jesus Christ will be in pursuit of those things I
mention in the former paragraph, but basically toward increasing
holiness and a walk after His Holy Spirit's guidance, and not after
the flesh.  We have a call to physically go and do this, it is
called "the great commission."  He instructs us specifically to
teach what He's commanded ("teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you"), along with an immediate reminder
in the same sentence:  "and, lo, I am with you alway, even until
the end of the world. Amen."

Now, the one part of that command that would be out of place is
water baptism.  We have 18-All authority is His, 19-Go, teach,
and baptize, 20-Teach His commands, and He is with us always.
Were baptizing to be water baptism, such as a requirement for
salvation, the thief on the cross could never have been saved.
Those people who receive Jesus hours or moments before they die,
those who, due to circumstances (being in a hospital, in a foxhole
in some war), could never have been saved, and so on...

But, if you use the term baptizing there to mean change, and take
it in the context of teaching, you're left with the entire call
for the great commission to be one of teaching, and a movement
toward sanctification and holiness.

Why baptism in this way (immersing people in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost)?  Because our lives have inertia.  We have
spent years doing sinful things.  We have common, oft-reflected
upon memories which stem from sinful content.  I, for example,
cannot help but throw up Monty Python quote after Monty Python
quote in my mind because since I was a late teenager I absolutely
loved their sense of humor.  Now, many years later, as a Christian,
I see how incredibly sinful their content is/was, and it is
something I must reject. Nonetheless, because of the inertia of my
former life, these things constantly fly up at me automatically by
my mind recalling them, and I must put them down.

He reminds us at the end that He's with us always, so that our
immersion in Him is not something we would do only, but that it
is really the fully completing act we have for Him, because He
is already always there, the more we acknowledge Him, the more
we bring Him forefront in our lives, the closer we walk with Him.

So with immersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as
by surrounding those we teach with the things God would have us do,
we are fulfilling the rest of the great commission, teaching them all
things, and we are accelerating the work of sanctification because
as these past things of their inertia life come forward, the ongoing
reminder of His presence in their lives, His guidance for those
things we should be doing, His correction and rebuke on their
behavior, works to create a full disciple.

I hope this makes sense, wss...@gmail.com.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66195 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 2:10:31 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 22/07/15 18:39, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> >  I teach them about Jesus Christ,
>> 
>> You may think so, but I think you're teaching them about Rick C Hodgin's 
>> Personal Theology, which isn't the same thing at all.
>
> Point out where I'm wrong and I'll backup every statement I've made
> with multiple scripture references conveying the concept, if not the
> exact wording.  And if and where I cannot, then I'll admit my
> mistake and adopt the correct understanding, because I seek the
> truth in coming to understand and in following Jesus Christ.

I've been mostly staying out of this, but since this doesn't seem
to be going away I'll give it one more try.  Realistically, I do
not expect to get through to you.

Quite simply, it doesn't matter (for purposes of this newsgroup)
whether you're right or wrong.  The issue is topicality, not
correctness.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that every theological
point you make is completely correct, this is not a place for
theological discussions.

Imagine if I walked into your church (assuming you attend one),
walked up to the pulpit, and insisted on talking to the congregation
about the correct way to define the main function in C.  Even if
everything I said was completely correct, it would be rude and
inappropriate -- because a pulpit in front of a congregation that
is there to attend a church service is not an appropriate place
to discuss C programming.  You would be well within your rights to
ask me to leave.  (Don't worry, I have no such plans.)

Your preaching in comp.lang.c is equally rude and inappropriate,
and for exactly the same reasons.

I'm sure you think that preaching about your religion has some
higher status that talking about C that makes it acceptable
for you to preach your religious beliefs here in comp.lang.c.
If so, all I can say is that you're wrong.  I ask you to at least
consider that possibility.  You seem to have difficulty doing that.
Consider it a challenge.

And even setting aside the the inappropriateness of the venue you've
chosen, you are not accomplishing your goal, and you will not.
You are not convincing anyone of anything.  You are just pissing
people off -- including at least one person who happens to be a
devout Christian.

You might consider creating a blog and including a link to it in your
sig block, along with whatever off-topic points you'd like to make.
Those who are interested would then be able to read whatever you
choose to write about, and nobody would have any reasonable grounds
for complaint, as long as the main body of each article you post
is reasonably topical.  I propose this as an alternative to what
you're doing now, but frankly all I care about is that you stop
your obnoxious behavior in this newsgroup.

And with that, I do not intend to reply to you again, even when
your posts happen to be topical, until and unless you stop making
your off-topic posts.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66193 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:

> Incorrect.  I do not debate people.  I teach them about Jesus Christ,

The only thing that you teach people about Jesus Christ is that one of
His followers is an asshole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66225 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 21:43:22 UTC+1, gwowen  wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Incorrect.  I do not debate people.  I teach them about Jesus Christ,
> 
> The only thing that you teach people about Jesus Christ is that one of
> His followers is an asshole.

Amen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66281 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

On 07/22/2015 08:43 PM, guinness.tony@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 July 2015 21:43:22 UTC+1, gwowen  wrote:
>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Incorrect.  I do not debate people.  I teach them about Jesus Christ,
>>
>> The only thing that you teach people about Jesus Christ is that one of
>> His followers is an asshole.
> 
> Amen.

I'm sure that his behavior does more to ruin the reputation of
Christians in general than it does to convert people to his particular
brand of Christianity (I'm sure it does very little of either - the main
effect is on his own reputation). It just occurred to me to wonder
whether that might be deliberate, rather than the result of appallingly
bad judgment.

There's a web site for the fictional Landover Baptist Church
<http://www.landoverbaptist.org/> which is run by atheists as an
over-the-top parody of everything they see as wrong about religion in
general, and Christians in particular. Amusingly, many people fail to
detect the parody. As a fellow atheist, I can be amused rather than
offended by the exaggerations - but I doubt that it's a useful tactic.

I wonder whether whether Rick C. Hodgin might be something similar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66282 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

On 24/07/15 15:41, James Kuyper wrote:

<snip>

> There's a web site for the fictional Landover Baptist Church

 From that site: "Please note - If you do not have the same beliefs as 
we do, you are going to burn in Hell forever." Hmmm, sounds familiar, 
doesn't it? If you are of a nervous disposition, you may be relieved to 
hear that the orthodox theological position is not quite as simple as that!

It was an amusing read, so thank you for the reference.

> <http://www.landoverbaptist.org/> which is run by atheists as an
> over-the-top parody of everything they see as wrong about religion in
> general, and Christians in particular. Amusingly, many people fail to
> detect the parody.

Yes, I can believe that. After all, to detect the parody, you'd need at 
least two, maybe even three, brain cells to rub together, right? :-)

> As a fellow atheist, I can be amused rather than
> offended by the exaggerations

As a Christian, I was amused by it too. I'm sure there are plenty of 
Christians who don't find it funny, but that says a lot more about their 
sense of humour than it does about their faith.

> - but I doubt that it's a useful tactic.

Probably not.

> I wonder whether whether Rick C. Hodgin might be something similar.

I think that, if he were, by now he'd have let it slip in some way.

-- 
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]

#66351 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 24/07/15 15:41, James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> > <http://www.landoverbaptist.org/> which is run by atheists as an
> > over-the-top parody of everything they see as wrong about religion in
> > general, and Christians in particular. Amusingly, many people fail to
> > detect the parody.
> 
> Yes, I can believe that. After all, to detect the parody, you'd need at 
> least two, maybe even three, brain cells to rub together, right? :-)
> 
> > As a fellow atheist, I can be amused rather than
> > offended by the exaggerations
> 
> As a Christian, I was amused by it too. I'm sure there are plenty of 
> Christians who don't find it funny, but that says a lot more about their 
> sense of humour than it does about their faith.

I'm considerably more offended by the Phelps family.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66306 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> There's a web site for the fictional Landover Baptist Church
> <http://www.landoverbaptist.org/> which is run by atheists as an
> over-the-top parody of everything they see as wrong about religion in
> general, and Christians in particular. Amusingly, many people fail to
> detect the parody. 

See also Poe's Law: 
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is
 utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone
 won't mistake for the genuine article."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66264 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:42:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin"
<rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> I'm not sure what's more off-topic here.  Talking about (American)
>> politics or your endless God-drivel.
>
>Talking about politics.  Discussions about Jesus Christ are appropriate
>in all places, at all times, in all situations, as "man does not live by
>bread alone, but by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God."
>
>    http://biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm
>
>It's time to wake up from your slumber, and seek the Lord.  He has
>eternal life to give all who come to Him. 

we human had one start... how can we be "etern"?

only God is etern, but our soul can not die

> He will forgive all your
>sins, and restore you to eternal life so that you will never die,
>even if you die here in this world, but will continue on forever as
>God made you to be:  soul, spirit, body (we are given a new body

or one is good or one is not good: his/her soul never die

>after death, one like the angels, one which never ages, never gets
>disease, hot, cold, has pain, for we are restored to the purpose God
>had for us before we fell through (because of) sin).

>Best regards,
>Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66265 — Re: Let's see who can be the most off-topic (Was: AVCALL ...) Generic function-calling code)

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-4, Rosario19 wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:42:14 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin"
> <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> >> Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> I'm not sure what's more off-topic here.  Talking about (American)
> >> politics or your endless God-drivel.
> >
> >Talking about politics.  Discussions about Jesus Christ are appropriate
> >in all places, at all times, in all situations, as "man does not live by
> >bread alone, but by EVERY word which proceeds from the mouth of God."
> >
> >    http://biblehub.com/matthew/4-4.htm
> >
> >It's time to wake up from your slumber, and seek the Lord.  He has
> >eternal life to give all who come to Him. 
> 
> we human had one start... how can we be "etern"?

Good question.

> only God is etern, but our soul can not die

The Bible uses those terms to refer to those who believe in
Him.  It is the gift of eternal life.

    http://biblehub.com/john/17-3.htm
    "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the
     only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

> > He will forgive all your
> >sins, and restore you to eternal life so that you will never die,
> >even if you die here in this world, but will continue on forever as
> >God made you to be:  soul, spirit, body (we are given a new body
> 
> or one is good or one is not good: his/her soul never die

Those who are forgiven go on living.  Those who are not forgiven are
cast into the lake of fire, and the Bible calls this "the second
Death".  But, those who are in the lake of fire will still be alive
and conscious, they will just be confined forever, unable to do
anything, tormented without end.

It's why we need Jesus Christ.  No one need go there.  There is no
return from that place.  It is the second death.  The final death.

Those who are forgiven are not hurt by the second death.  We have
passed from judgement into life:

    http://biblehub.com/revelation/2-11.htm
    "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
     unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt
     of the second death."

    http://biblehub.com/john/5-24.htm
    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
     and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,
     and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from
     death unto life."

Those who are unforgiven:

    http://biblehub.com/revelation/20-14.htm
    http://biblehub.com/revelation/20-15.htm
    "14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.
     This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found
     written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
     fire."

The fire does not consume, but only torments.  Forever.

Nobody need go there.  Only those who harden their heart, cover
their ears and eyes, close off their mind to the truth, will go
there.  Those who have an ear to hear, all of them who come to
Jesus Christ will be saved.  All of them.

It's why each of us needs to humble ourselves and come to Him.
He is our only hope of salvation, redemption, and eternal life.

> >after death, one like the angels, one which never ages, never gets
> >disease, hot, cold, has pain, for we are restored to the purpose God
> >had for us before we fell through (because of) sin).

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66169 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

On 22/07/2015 13:50, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <monse0$ctq$1@dont-email.me>, Bartc  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> ...
>> (I'm looking at Kenny's link to FFCALL, which looks as though it
>> understands the issues involved, but it looks very complicated, and it
>> might not be fully updated for x64 (possibly it has come across the same
>> problem I have!).)
>
> Everyone else here is trying to stay on topic - that is, to try to coerce
> the problem into one that can be solved in Standard C - and/or try to
> convince you that you don't really want to do what you say you want to do.
> I seem to be the only one who understands what you're doing - probably
> because I've been doing it myself for years.
>
> Yes, avcall is the solution.  It works very well and compiles on most
> normal platforms.  I've used it on Linux-x86, Linux-x64, ARM-32, Solaris
> Sparc-32, and Windows 32.  I've never had occasion to try it on Win64, so
> it is possible it hasn't been ported there yet.  I'd be surprised if that
> is the case, but I suppose it is possible.

I've looked here:

http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/ffcall/avcall/?root=libffcall

and can't see anything relevant to Windows x64. The nearest is Linux x64.

It's not clear from that list exactly what is needed (I managed to 
compile a test using avcall.h - which I had to find elsewhere as it's 
not here - but it needs '__builtin_ avcall'. The makefile on the above 
site mentioned avcall-i186.asm, but I can't see that anywhere unless 
it's generated by something else).

But anyway, if it simply uses assembly, as I suspect although I can't 
see it, then I can just do the same. I suppose I was after something 
that could just form part of a straightforward C source distribution 
without some hairy-looking dependencies.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66182 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

In article <mooh56$ln$1@dont-email.me>, Bartc  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
...
>I've looked here:
>
>http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/ffcall/avcall/?root=libffcall
>
>and can't see anything relevant to Windows x64. The nearest is Linux x64.
>
>It's not clear from that list exactly what is needed (I managed to 
>compile a test using avcall.h - which I had to find elsewhere as it's 
>not here - but it needs '__builtin_ avcall'. The makefile on the above 
>site mentioned avcall-i186.asm, but I can't see that anywhere unless 
>it's generated by something else).
>
>But anyway, if it simply uses assembly, as I suspect although I can't 
>see it, then I can just do the same. I suppose I was after something 
>that could just form part of a straightforward C source distribution 
>without some hairy-looking dependencies.

(With all due respect...)

It's really not that hard or that complicated to use.  You just build the
library (which also builds the include file, and, as the docs make very
clear, most of the magic is in the include file, not the library) and then
you just use it like any other include file/linkable library combination.

But I'm not here to handhold you through it.  You either figure it out or
you don't.  You probably have to do a little more Googling/searching.  I
don't think the savannah site is all that well kept up-to-date.  I think
there are better places to trawl through.

Personally, I think it has been done for Win64, by somebody, somewhere, you
just have to find it (*).  I'm going through the same hassle for OSX-64 (I
have no interest in Windows beyond 32 bit, but I do have a 64 bit Mac that
I'd like to get avcall working on...).  I assume it (avcall on OSX-64) has
been done; I just haven't found it yet.

(*) Or, if you're such hot sh*t with assembler, that you think you could do
this yourself, then you could probably implement ffcall/avcall on Win64 and
make everybody happier.

-- 
Mike Huckabee has yet to consciously uncouple from Josh Duggar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66212 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

On 22/07/2015 20:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <mooh56$ln$1@dont-email.me>, Bartc  <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> ...
>> I've looked here:
>>
>> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/ffcall/avcall/?root=libffcall
>>
>> and can't see anything relevant to Windows x64. The nearest is Linux x64.
>>
>> It's not clear from that list exactly what is needed (I managed to
>> compile a test using avcall.h - which I had to find elsewhere as it's
>> not here - but it needs '__builtin_ avcall'. The makefile on the above
>> site mentioned avcall-i186.asm, but I can't see that anywhere unless
>> it's generated by something else).
>>
>> But anyway, if it simply uses assembly, as I suspect although I can't
>> see it, then I can just do the same. I suppose I was after something
>> that could just form part of a straightforward C source distribution
>> without some hairy-looking dependencies.
>
> (With all due respect...)
>
> It's really not that hard or that complicated to use.

Well, apparently for me it is!

>  You just build the
> library (which also builds the include file, and, as the docs make very
> clear,

I don't know how to do that.

(What, for example, is the library called; what files comprise the 
library? Where do I even find it as apparently CVS is out of date? Why 
is a build process necessary; what does it produce? I did find a link to 
a 'tarball' file at one point, but got a 404 on it.

If I did distribute code with this dependency, do users need to go 
through the same palaver? No, don't answer; the fact I need to ask these 
questions probably tells you this isn't for me!)

> most of the magic is in the include file, not the library)

No, the interesting bit is the av_call() function, which maps to 
__builtin_avcall, an external function. The header just seems to be 
about building a list (and also seems inordinately preoccupied with 
struct-handling; I'm not!).


-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66213 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

Bart,

I plan to write this function for Visual FreePro, Jr.
I will write it to use both 32-bit and 64-bit versions
of Windows.

I'll use a mapping which identifies expected input
and output params, the source data to convert to
those forms, and a pair of functions to handle the
translation, call, and receipt of the return value.

When I get it finished, it may be of use to you if only
in parts.

Lord willing, of course.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66216 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

On 22/07/2015 23:19, Bartc wrote:
> On 22/07/2015 20:36, Kenny McCormack wrote:

>> (With all due respect...)
>>
>> It's really not that hard or that complicated to use.
>
> Well, apparently for me it is!
>
>>  You just build the
>> library (which also builds the include file, and, as the docs make very
>> clear,
>
> I don't know how to do that.
>
> (What, for example, is the library called; what files comprise the
> library? Where do I even find it as apparently CVS is out of date? Why
> is a build process necessary; what does it produce? I did find a link to
> a 'tarball' file at one point, but got a 404 on it.

I think I have a better idea know of what the library consists of. It 
might be *all 78 files* in the AVCALL directory on CVS. The README file 
contains some of the build-docs you mention, and the first thing it says is:

  ./configure

This I guess is a 'bash' file (so doesn't really work under Windows). I 
had a look inside, and it's only a mere 20400 lines of configuration 
script. (My entire application I wanted to add this minor feature to is 
smaller than that!)

I'm thinking that maybe, generating a couple of thousand lines of C to 
handle all the call combinations needed would be simpler overall. And it 
would be pure C, with nothing special to do except just compile. While a 
dedicated ASM solution might be 100 lines of code.

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66248 — Re: AVCALL (from the 'ffcall' package) really is the answer! (Was: Generic function-calling code)

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
> I'm thinking that maybe, generating a couple of thousand lines of C to 
> handle all the call combinations needed would be simpler overall. And it 
> would be pure C, with nothing special to do except just compile. While a 
> dedicated ASM solution might be 100 lines of code.

I'm working on this in my spare time using the x86 algorithm which uses
straight-forward assembly to prepare the stack, dispatch, and retrieve
the return value.  I'll get the 32-bit version completed, then the
64-bit after.

I'll try to get it completed this weekend if you would like to use it.
I plan right now to work on it this evening and possibly complete it,
but it will depend on life things so I'll add the "Lord willing" tag.

:-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web