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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #4898 > unrolled thread

for your languages

Started by"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid>
First post2011-05-28 09:08 +0200
Last post2011-05-28 18:42 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 139 — 20 participants

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

Contents

  for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-28 09:08 +0200
    Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 02:48 -0700
      Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-29 17:51 +0200
        Re: for your languages Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-16 15:39 -0700
          Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-17 09:55 +0200
            Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 22:21 -0500
              Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-20 09:51 +0200
                Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-20 12:06 +0200
                Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 10:08 -0500
                  Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-08 20:06 +0200
    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 11:06 +0100
      Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-28 03:38 -0700
      Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-28 16:01 +0100
        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 19:36 +0100
          Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-28 21:18 +0100
            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:33 +0100
              Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 08:31 -0400
                Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-29 05:37 -0700
                  Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 09:09 -0400
                    Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-29 07:00 -0700
                      Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-29 16:52 +0100
                    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:18 +0100
                      Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-30 22:21 -0400
                        Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-30 20:39 -0700
                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:44 -0700
                    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:12 +0100
                      Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:44 -0700
                Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:05 +0100
              Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:34 -0700
                Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 02:00 +0100
                  Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-31 13:10 +0100
                    Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-31 06:20 -0700
                      Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:53 -0700
                  Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:23 +0000
                    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 17:46 +0100
                      Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 17:05 +0000
                        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:39 +0100
                          Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
                            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 22:18 +0100
                              Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 00:44 +0000
                      Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 19:04 +0000
                        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:44 +0100
                          Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 19:40 +0000
                            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:58 +0100
                              Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 23:09 +0000
                              Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:28 -0500
                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:41 -0700
      Re: for your languages Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 11:15 -0400
        Re: for your languages Lorenzo Villari <vlllnz@tiscali.it> - 2011-05-28 20:05 +0200
          Re: for your languages Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 14:16 -0400
      Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 12:07 -0700
        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:19 +0100
          Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-29 08:59 -0400
            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 01:50 +0100
          Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-29 20:36 +0000
            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 00:28 +0100
              Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-30 17:21 -0700
                Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 01:58 +0100
                  Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 01:27 +0000
                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:37 -0700
                  Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-05-31 18:34 -0700
                    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:06 +0100
                      Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:30 -0400
                        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:36 +0100
                          Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 22:06 -0400
                      Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-01 18:19 -0700
                        Re: for your languages Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 01:06 -0500
                          Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 12:02 -0700
                        Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:34 +0100
                          Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 15:53 -0700
                          Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 12:24 -0700
              Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 01:10 +0000
              Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 10:34 -0700
                Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 14:58 +0100
                  Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 21:18 +0100
                    Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 13:40 -0700
                      Re: for your languages Billy Mays <noway@nohow.com> - 2011-06-02 17:31 -0400
                        Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 10:39 -0700
                    Re: for your languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 22:19 -0400
                      Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-02 19:36 -0700
                        Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 08:44 -0700
                          Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-04 14:41 +0100
                            Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:31 +0000
                              Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-04 09:51 -0700
                                Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-05 00:05 +0000
                                Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-04 18:31 -0700
                              Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-04 10:02 -0700
                                Re: for your languages cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-06-04 22:10 +0000
                                Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-04 18:26 -0700
                              Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 13:40 +0100
                                Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-05 15:47 +0000
                                  Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:16 -0700
                                    Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:30 -0700
                                    Re: for your languages Heikki Kallasjoki <see@end.of.message.invalid> - 2011-06-05 17:38 +0000
                                      Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 10:49 -0700
                            Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-04 09:50 -0700
                            Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-04 13:23 -0700
                              Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 12:32 +0100
                                Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-05 07:15 -0700
                                  Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-06 18:18 +0200
                                    Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 11:40 -0700
                                      Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 16:57 +0200
                                        Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-07 08:36 -0700
                                          Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 18:19 +0200
                                          Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-06-07 18:32 +0200
                                Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 12:33 -0700
                                  Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 13:08 -0700
                                    Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 13:54 -0700
                                      Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 18:57 -0700
                                        Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 20:37 -0700
                                          Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 20:58 -0700
                                            Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-05 21:49 -0700
                                              Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 22:05 -0700
                                                Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-06 09:11 -0700
                                                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-16 13:00 -0700
                                        Re: for your languages Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-06 02:04 -0700
                                        Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-06 10:21 +0100
                                    Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-05 22:47 +0100
                                      Re: for your languages China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-05 18:25 -0700
                                        Re: for your languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 13:41 +1200
                                        Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-06 10:06 +0100
                                        Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
                                    Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
          Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 00:44 +0100
            Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 18:09 +0100
              Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 12:00 -0700
                Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 15:33 +0100
                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 09:07 -0700
                  Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 10:12 -0700
                    Re: for your languages BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-01 12:45 -0700
                  Re: for your languages "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-03 15:41 +0100
                    Re: for your languages Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 13:30 +0100
                      Re: for your languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-06 15:39 +0000
    Re: for your languages "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-28 03:34 -0700
      Re: for your languages "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-29 08:42 +0200
    Re: for your languages Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2011-05-29 01:00 +0200
      Re: for your languages Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:49 +0000
        Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:42 -0700
      Re: for your languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:42 -0700

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

#5363

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-03 08:44 -0700
Message-ID<lnboyekjhr.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5337
China Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <is9gb8$9td$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> 
> wrote:
>> All three of the assembly languages I was familiar a couple of decades
>> ago  had precisely those characteristics, but you'll probably dismiss
>> them as obsolete. It's not so much that optimization was prohibited, as
>
> Since then there have been a class of interpretters that interpret instruction 
> set for machine M while running on machine M. They dynamically detect basic 
> blocks, traces, etc, and then cache increasingly optimised versions of the code.

I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5427

FromRui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
Date2011-06-04 14:41 +0100
Message-ID<4dea35ff$0$8875$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>
In reply to#5363
Keith Thompson wrote:

> I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.

Interpreters demonstrate that it is possible to map any set of 
instructions in language A to a set of instructions in language B, which 
in this case are different instruction sets.  As assembly languages are 
abstractions of any given instruction set then the same conclusion also 
applies to any mapping between assembly languages.


Rui Maciel

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

#5432

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-04 16:31 +0000
Message-ID<slrniukneh.2su.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5427
On 2011-06-04, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
>> I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.
>
> Interpreters demonstrate that it is possible to map any set of 
> instructions in language A to a set of instructions in language B, which 
> in this case are different instruction sets.  As assembly languages are 
> abstractions of any given instruction set then the same conclusion also 
> applies to any mapping between assembly languages.

Interpreters are case-specific, written for a particular language and
often for a specific architecture as well. Their existence does not
prove that what you say is true in general for all instruction sets.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
x86.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5435

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-04 09:51 -0700
Message-ID<ln4o45ilpk.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5432
Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 2011-06-04, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.
>>
>> Interpreters demonstrate that it is possible to map any set of 
>> instructions in language A to a set of instructions in language B, which 
>> in this case are different instruction sets.  As assembly languages are 
>> abstractions of any given instruction set then the same conclusion also 
>> applies to any mapping between assembly languages.
>
> Interpreters are case-specific, written for a particular language and
> often for a specific architecture as well. Their existence does not
> prove that what you say is true in general for all instruction sets.
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>
> Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
> instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
> x86.

Oh?  What if I write a sparc64 emulator in x86 assembly language?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5461

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-05 00:05 +0000
Message-ID<slrniuli1v.3d4.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5435
On 2011-06-04, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On 2011-06-04, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.
>>>
>>> Interpreters demonstrate that it is possible to map any set of 
>>> instructions in language A to a set of instructions in language B, which 
>>> in this case are different instruction sets.  As assembly languages are 
>>> abstractions of any given instruction set then the same conclusion also 
>>> applies to any mapping between assembly languages.
>>
>> Interpreters are case-specific, written for a particular language and
>> often for a specific architecture as well. Their existence does not
>> prove that what you say is true in general for all instruction sets.
>>
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>>
>> Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
>> instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
>> x86.
>
> Oh?  What if I write a sparc64 emulator in x86 assembly language?

Mm, I suppose that counts as a "meaningful way", but then the instructions
will no longer do the same thing; they don't affect the x86, just the
virtual machine the x86 is emulating. But other than that, good find,
I admit hadn't thought of that. :-)

Incidentally, I have been looking for a sparc emulator that'll run on
Linux, but I never found one. I suppose there is none... If I knew
anything about emulators I could maybe write my own, but...


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5464

FromChina Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
Date2011-06-04 18:31 -0700
Message-ID<chine.bleu-E2F1EF.18310904062011@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#5435
In article <slrniukv6u.1tcl.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:

> On 2011-06-04, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> > Oh?  What if I write a sparc64 emulator in x86 assembly language?
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> That leads to an interesting design for the assembler.  Assume an emulator
> which works on string arguments which have the form of assembly mnemonics.
> You can then translate every input assembly menmonic string to

Tcl 7 interpretter basically did this, once you defined procs for each 
instruction mnemonic.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |              I survived XYZZY-Day.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|     I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    |Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |  At least I can stay in character.

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

#5437

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-04 10:02 -0700
Message-ID<04d94867-6229-44ab-a200-eb78972f3fdf@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5432
On Jun 4, 6:31 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>

> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>
> Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
> instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
> x86.

Doesn't Turing object to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

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

#5448

Fromcri@tiac.net (Richard Harter)
Date2011-06-04 22:10 +0000
Message-ID<4deaab22.684361831@text.giganews.com>
In reply to#5437
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT), "Kleuskes & Moos"
<kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 6:31=A0pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization
>>
>> Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
>> instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
>> x86.
>
>Doesn't Turing object to that?

He doesn't.  He's dead, poor chap.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

The problem with "Turing completeness" is that it is not physically
realizable.  If you want to say that in a hypothetical infinite
universe two different languages are equivalent, have at it.   In this
universe equivalencies are subject to finiteness constraints.  Another
factor is that different machines, real and virtual, have different
input and output devices and these might not be equivalent.

All of that said, I'm skeptical about the claim.

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

#5463

FromChina Blue Angels <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
Date2011-06-04 18:26 -0700
Message-ID<chine.bleu-69A858.18264904062011@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#5437
In article <04d94867-6229-44ab-a200-eb78972f3fdf@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> On Jun 4, 6:31 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization
> >
> > Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
> > instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
> > x86.
> 
> Doesn't Turing object to that?

Or if you can write a sparc64 emulator.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |              I survived XYZZY-Day.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|     I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    |Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |  At least I can stay in character.

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

#5490

FromRui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
Date2011-06-05 13:40 +0100
Message-ID<4deb7944$0$8876$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>
In reply to#5432
Angel wrote:

> Interpreters are case-specific, written for a particular language and
> often for a specific architecture as well. Their existence does not
> prove that what you say is true in general for all instruction sets.

Your claim is silly, and in order for you to believe it is remotely 
reasonable you would need to believe that it is impossible for an 
interpreter to support more than one platform and it is impossible for an 
interpreter to support more than one programming language.

 
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Well, at least you got that bit right.


> Anyway, your claim is false, I am 100% certain I can write a set of
> instructions for sparc64 that cannot be mapped in any meaningful way to
> x86.

Too bad gut feeling isn't enough to prove/disprove stuff.


Rui Maciel

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

#5498

FromAngel <angel+news@spamcop.net>
Date2011-06-05 15:47 +0000
Message-ID<slrniun998.bkn.angel+news@pearlgates.net>
In reply to#5490
On 2011-06-05, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>
>> Interpreters are case-specific, written for a particular language and
>> often for a specific architecture as well. Their existence does not
>> prove that what you say is true in general for all instruction sets.
>
> Your claim is silly, and in order for you to believe it is remotely 
> reasonable you would need to believe that it is impossible for an 
> interpreter to support more than one platform and it is impossible for an 
> interpreter to support more than one programming language.

Just a minute there, you were the first to make a claim, namely that the
existence of interpreters proves that any set of instructions can be
mapped to an equivalent set of instructions in another language, the
burden of proof is on you.

Since you have not shown that there is an universal interpreter than can
handle all cases, nor have you shown that it is possible to write an
interpreter for each and every of the possible cases out there, you have
yet to prove your claim.


Anyway, your claim covers all instruction sets of any size, that
includes instruction sets that contain exactly one instruction. So,
according to you it must be possible to map any sparc64 assembler
instruction to an equivalent set of instructions on x86. Since the
sparc64 has many more registers than any x86 processor does, I say
that claim is impossible, and therefor not all instruction sets can
be mapped.


But I tire of these games, it is clear to me that you'll never admit
that you are wrong no matter how many times your claims fall flat on
their face.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#5506

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-05 10:16 -0700
Message-ID<b2fcecd0-bf98-4899-9c2f-92497d39a2f2@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5498
On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Anyway, your claim covers all instruction sets of any size, that
> includes instruction sets that contain exactly one instruction.

Nitpick: such machines cannot possibly exist*). The smallest set of
instructions i know of that's actually turing-complete is that of
BrainF*ck; a mere 8 instructions suffice.

*) Their one instruction might aswell be hardwired, thus excluding it
from the set of "programmable devices".

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

#5507

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-05 10:30 -0700
Message-ID<ee4c32b7-b111-4def-b525-1514380dedcb@r17g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5506
On Jun 5, 7:16 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, your claim covers all instruction sets of any size, that
> > includes instruction sets that contain exactly one instruction.
>
> Nitpick: such machines cannot possibly exist*). The smallest set of
> instructions i know of that's actually turing-complete is that of
> BrainF*ck; a mere 8 instructions suffice.
>
> *) Their one instruction might aswell be hardwired, thus excluding it
> from the set of "programmable devices".

And, rambling on illucidly for a bit, the good man _does_ have a
point. Transmeta's crusoe processor is based on th idea that every
instruction on any given processor can be translated into a
corresponding (set of) instruction(s) for a completely other CPU. It
employs a trick called 'code morphing' to do just that. Not on the
assembly level, but on the actual machinecode level (see
www.ptlsim.org/papers/transmeta-cgo2003.pdf for the details).

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

#5508

FromHeikki Kallasjoki <see@end.of.message.invalid>
Date2011-06-05 17:38 +0000
Message-ID<slrniunfp7.qf9.fis@iris.zem.fi>
In reply to#5506
On 2011-06-05, Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, your claim covers all instruction sets of any size, that
>> includes instruction sets that contain exactly one instruction.
>
> Nitpick: such machines cannot possibly exist*). The smallest set of
> instructions i know of that's actually turing-complete is that of
> BrainF*ck; a mere 8 instructions suffice.
>
> *) Their one instruction might aswell be hardwired, thus excluding it
> from the set of "programmable devices".

That might apply if the instruction was forbidden to take any operands,
like BrainF*ck instructions are.  Generally machine instructions can
take e.g. constant and memory location operands, though.

There are a number of "OISC" (one instruction set computer, compare
RISC) instruction sets that are Turing-complete with the usual
assumptions (arbitrarily large integers and infinite memory); ones built
on the "subtract and branch if negative" instruction are popular.  See
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer for
examples.

As an aside, BrainF*ck's set of 8 instructions is far from minimal, even
when talking only about BF variants.  See
http://www.esolangs.org/wiki/BF_instruction_minimalization

-- 
Heikki Kallasjoki
email: echo 'zfs+es_t_i@n_u.zf' | tr zen_muftis fuze_mints

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

#5509

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-05 10:49 -0700
Message-ID<4963c162-a5f0-4833-b4d3-e56a7c9ea8b8@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5508
On Jun 5, 7:38 pm, Heikki Kallasjoki <s...@end.of.message.invalid>
wrote:
> On 2011-06-05, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 5:47 pm, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, your claim covers all instruction sets of any size, that
> >> includes instruction sets that contain exactly one instruction.
>
> > Nitpick: such machines cannot possibly exist*). The smallest set of
> > instructions i know of that's actually turing-complete is that of
> > BrainF*ck; a mere 8 instructions suffice.
>
> > *) Their one instruction might aswell be hardwired, thus excluding it
> > from the set of "programmable devices".
>
> That might apply if the instruction was forbidden to take any operands,
> like BrainF*ck instructions are.  Generally machine instructions can
> take e.g. constant and memory location operands, though.
> There are a number of "OISC" (one instruction set computer, compare
> RISC) instruction sets that are Turing-complete with the usual
> assumptions (arbitrarily large integers and infinite memory); ones built
> on the "subtract and branch if negative" instruction are popular.  See
> e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computerfor
> examples.

> As an aside, BrainF*ck's set of 8 instructions is far from minimal, even
> when talking only about BF variants.  Seehttp://www.esolangs.org/wiki/BF_instruction_minimalization

Thanks for pointing it out. Fortunately i restricted my claim with a
'that i know of'. Abstract machines are not my usual kettle of fish.

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

#5433

FromKeith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date2011-06-04 09:50 -0700
Message-ID<ln8vthilrj.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to#5427
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I thought we were talking about assemblers, not interpreters.
>
> Interpreters demonstrate that it is possible to map any set of 
> instructions in language A to a set of instructions in language B, which 
> in this case are different instruction sets.  As assembly languages are 
> abstractions of any given instruction set then the same conclusion also 
> applies to any mapping between assembly languages.

If the requirement is that the mapping maintains the visible behavior
of the program, then that seems like an unremarkable claim --
and not one that supports your earlier assertions.

Something that might help support your earlier assertions is
a concrete example of a "macro assembler" that doesn't strictly
define the generated machine code for a given input.  I've asked
for such an example several times.  Does one really exist?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#5445

FromMichael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
Date2011-06-04 13:23 -0700
Message-ID<rubrum-53EF54.13234404062011@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#5427
In article <4dea35ff$0$8875$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
 Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

> assembly languages are 
> abstractions of any given instruction set

I don't believe it. An assembly language provides 
tokens and syntax for fully specifying machine language
instructions. An assembly language is exactly as
abstract as the stored program digital computer for 
which it is written.

-- 
Michael Press

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

#5483

FromRui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
Date2011-06-05 12:32 +0100
Message-ID<4deb6932$0$8878$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>
In reply to#5445
Michael Press wrote:

> I don't believe it. An assembly language provides
> tokens and syntax for fully specifying machine language
> instructions. An assembly language is exactly as
> abstract as the stored program digital computer for
> which it is written.

Please notice that in this thread we are talking about macro-assembly 
languages.  This distinction is fundamental to this discussion, as it 
makes it clear that we are discussing assembly languages which explicitly 
support code abstraction.  That is, the language does more than simply 
offer a more human-friendly way to set specific opcodes, and is capable of 
abstracting more than mere individual opcodes.


Rui Maciel

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

#5494

From"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl>
Date2011-06-05 07:15 -0700
Message-ID<2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
In reply to#5483
On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > I don't believe it. An assembly language provides
> > tokens and syntax for fully specifying machine language
> > instructions. An assembly language is exactly as
> > abstract as the stored program digital computer for
> > which it is written.
>
> Please notice that in this thread we are talking about macro-assembly
> languages.  This distinction is fundamental to this discussion, as it
> makes it clear that we are discussing assembly languages which explicitly
> support code abstraction.  That is, the language does more than simply
> offer a more human-friendly way to set specific opcodes, and is capable of
> abstracting more than mere individual opcodes.
>
> Rui Maciel

Ah. And that's the point. Abstract programmaing languages do even
more. Not only do they take care of all the nitty-gritty details you
would have to do manually in a macro-assembler, they also impose some
rules about what constitutes valid code and what does not, and, more
importantly, they attempt to explain why by providing errors and
warnings.

And even though they are not much loved, providing errors and warnings
is one of the prime objectives of many abstract programming languages.
Please consult, for instance, one of the C standards (C89, for one)
and see in how much detail the authors go to specify when exactly an
error should be signaled. This alone would make them a valuable tool.

Moreover, they provide easy annotations for complex data-structures,
which quickly become not only a bore in assembly (since you would have
to implement everything 'manually') but also a prime source of bugs.
Some abstract languages (case in point, Prolog) even provide
functionality that simply does not exist on the assembly level. The
only way to access from assembly to that kind of functionalty is
reinventing it (poorly).

Having macro assemblers is a Good Thing, since abstract programming
languages cannot (and should not) cater to every possible situation,
and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware,
but the contention that they make abstract programming languages
superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable.

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

#5570

From"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid>
Date2011-06-06 18:18 +0200
Message-ID<4decfd6a$0$38650$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>
In reply to#5494
"Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2734b1c3-4224-4f23-b19a-06353b1eb792@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 1:32 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>and assembly does provide unique access to the underlying hardware,
>but the contention that they make abstract programming languages
>superfluous, as seems to be your point, is laughable.

i would not laught too much...

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

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

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

csiph-web