Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #100060 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-22 22:47 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-01-07 18:51 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-12-22 22:47 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-12-23 06:56 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-23 11:08 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-23 11:26 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-23 12:09 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-23 12:34 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-23 12:56 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-23 20:58 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-23 21:09 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-12-23 13:36 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-23 12:39 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 16:46 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 13:04 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-25 09:43 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 22:01 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-24 15:21 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 15:29 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-25 16:53 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-25 13:13 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-27 09:42 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-02-03 20:40 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:47 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-29 14:33 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 10:04 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-01 11:38 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 13:49 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-02 02:17 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-01-03 13:26 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-26 17:29 -0600
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-27 10:10 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:33 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-27 20:22 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 10:18 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-27 13:28 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 15:55 -0600
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 11:01 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-27 16:40 -0600
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-28 11:53 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 01:34 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-29 06:27 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-02 02:47 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 08:45 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 15:26 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-01-01 13:03 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-02 03:04 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 08:27 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-02 12:37 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 10:42 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-12 21:24 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-14 11:15 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-16 00:31 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 21:45 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-30 18:24 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 13:49 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-10 01:57 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-10 10:32 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-13 08:44 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-02 10:42 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-02 13:06 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-03 10:53 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-03 07:01 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-03 09:01 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-03 12:36 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 09:51 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-03 13:08 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-03 14:07 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:28 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-03 22:49 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 11:53 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-03 18:39 -0600
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-04 00:47 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-04 09:49 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-04 15:45 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-04 20:05 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-03 15:55 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-04 13:09 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-04 00:12 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-04 09:50 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-04 07:25 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-01-04 15:29 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-04 10:29 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-03 16:34 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-07 18:59 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-07 15:59 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-08 03:27 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-07 21:56 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-03 16:22 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-01-04 07:05 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 15:09 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 15:40 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-13 15:56 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 15:58 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-14 09:29 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-31 08:14 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-31 10:57 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 08:07 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 08:43 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 08:43 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-18 21:46 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-18 09:01 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-27 14:37 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-23 12:33 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-23 17:21 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-23 13:08 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-23 22:33 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-23 14:55 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-23 15:12 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 01:08 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-24 04:12 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 15:12 +0000
Re: Inadvertent trolls Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-24 11:34 +0100
Re: Inadvertent trolls BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 12:47 +0000
Typo or freudian slip? (Was: Inadvertent trolls) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-24 13:13 +0000
Re: Typo or freudian slip? (Was: Inadvertent trolls) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-24 14:02 +0000
Re: Inadvertent trolls Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-24 12:36 -0800
Re: Inadvertent trolls Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-24 13:59 -0800
Re: Inadvertent trolls Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 18:38 +0000
Re: C interpreter Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-12-24 23:39 +0100
Re: C interpreter BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-25 00:32 +0000
Re: Inadvertent trolls jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-01-01 11:10 +0100
Re: Inadvertent trolls BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-01 11:54 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-23 09:52 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-01-04 23:38 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-05 17:49 +1300
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-01-05 09:57 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-01-05 09:50 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-23 11:16 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-23 04:36 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-23 13:24 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-29 01:35 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-01 10:06 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-28 18:33 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-02 02:13 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-02 02:53 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-12 23:09 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-13 08:51 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-01-13 10:28 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-13 10:00 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-13 10:34 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 21:00 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-14 00:17 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-14 13:52 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-16 00:18 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-28 18:40 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-28 16:48 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-28 17:01 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-29 01:08 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-29 01:27 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 01:59 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-23 13:01 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-04 14:08 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-01-05 00:05 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Norbert_Paul <norbertpauls_spambin@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 12:08 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-01-05 10:41 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Norbert_Paul <norbertpauls_spambin@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-05 18:08 +0100
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-05 17:08 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-05 12:02 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-05 14:36 -0500
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-01-07 20:20 +0000
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-07 12:55 -0800
Re: How does gcc (any compiler) actually convert a function call, say atoi(), into assembly/machine code? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-01-07 18:51 -0500
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-27 14:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9e04e36-867b-4fcd-9f66-490fe129858a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100362 |
On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-6, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > The knowledge and understanding of the C standard *are* specialist > knowledge. It is very easy for someone new to the C standard to miss > the many subtleties just from reading the standard. Many of the "subtleties" involve cases where an implementation would have to go out of its way *not* to behave in an obvious and predictable fashion, and the Standard allows, *but might not require*, the obvious and predictable behavior. Some of the others involve cases where divergent behavior of some library functions in the days before the Standard has led to ambiguity as to what user code should expect certain things to mean, which may in turn lead to ambiguity as to how the library should avoid confusion, though in some cases an implementation author may be able to opt for non-confusing behaviors. Consider, for example, situations where code needs to allocate space to hold a collection of n items, where n might be zero, and might later need to change the size of an allocation (possibly to zero). On some systems passing a size of zero to malloc() will create and return a pointer to a minimum- sized allocation, upon which the application will be required to call free(). On others, it will return a null pointer upon which the application may or may not call free(), at its convenience. How should realloc() behave on the latter kind of system when given a size of zero? If the application isn't expecting to omit the freeing of zero-sized objects, an implementation of realloc() could simply return a pointer to a minimal- sized object when given a size of zero, without creating any ambiguity. If the malloc() implementation would normally return a null pointer when given a size of zero, however, it would make sense for realloc() to do so. The difficulty is that if p is non-null and realloc(p,0) returns a null pointer, it would be unclear whether the call failed and p is still valid and must be freed, or the call succeeded and p is no longer a valid pointer (so any attempt to do anything with it--including freeing it--would invoke UB). Someone who isn't an expert on C might not know how to handle that situation if zero-size allocation requests return null, but there's an easy way to avoid that situation: make a zero-size allocation request return a pointer that behaves just like any other size, save for the number of bytes of storage that a program is guaranteed to be able to safely access (which would be one for an allocation of size 1, two for an allocation of size 2, etc. and zero for an allocation of size zero).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wpeqbza5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #100063 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > I think it would be quicker to just write an atoi() function rather > than try and find the source online! I'm a pretty fast coder but since I found it in about 20 seconds I don't think that I could. Mind you, it turns out to be one line (a call to strtol) so maybe I could have. That's not the sort of implementation you were talking about though. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3jmc2$ihc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100068 |
On 23/12/2016 12:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> > >> I think it would be quicker to just write an atoi() function rather >> than try and find the source online! > > I'm a pretty fast coder but since I found it in about 20 seconds I don't > think that I could. Maybe you already knew enough to type in the right search terms. Doing something like "c atoi function source" didn't give anything useful on the first page. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 13:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnr34ybbfj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #100085 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Maybe you already knew enough to type in the right search terms. Doing
> something like "c atoi function source" didn't give anything useful on
> the first page.
I just tried that exact search. 5 of the 10 results on the first page
included (attempted) implementations of atoi() -- most of them
incorrect. Is that what you meant when you said the results weren't
useful?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3k8li$mp6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100092 |
On 23/12/2016 21:08, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> Maybe you already knew enough to type in the right search terms. Doing >> something like "c atoi function source" didn't give anything useful on >> the first page. > > I just tried that exact search. 5 of the 10 results on the first page > included (attempted) implementations of atoi() -- most of them > incorrect. Is that what you meant when you said the results weren't > useful? The first ten results were either about /using/ atoi, or various assorted attempts to write a function like atoi, none of which seemed likely to be an official implementation from a C library, or were more generally about the C runtime library. The second page was more of the same. With a smattering of C++ versions. It's only when you start using "glibc atoi function source" that you get more relevant results. So it's this "glibc" that appears to be the magic keyword, that you have to know about. What why should anyone know about "glibc"? It doesn't appear in K&R or the C Standard. It's also gnu-specific, but there must be plenty of other C libraries (and people here are fond of pointing out that there is no connection with a C compiler and a particular library. Apparently they all interoperable.). I don't know however what search terms Ben used; or which search engine (I used google). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 14:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1f525796-4015-4b19-80ae-27e0ccc216c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100098 |
On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:33:53 PM UTC, Bart wrote: > > What why should anyone know about "glibc"? It doesn't appear in K&R or > the C Standard. It's also gnu-specific, but there must be plenty of > other C libraries (and people here are fond of pointing out that there > is no connection with a C compiler and a particular library. Apparently > they all interoperable.). > > I don't know however what search terms Ben used; or which search engine > (I used google). > If I remember rightly, glibc is a monster of a thing that includes the C standard library then a whole host of threading, sockets, file system and other operating system type stuff as well. I don't know if you can prevent gcc from linking to it. If you did, the question would be how to get any output from the program at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-23 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln7f6qb5q2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #100098 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/12/2016 21:08, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Maybe you already knew enough to type in the right search terms. Doing
>>> something like "c atoi function source" didn't give anything useful on
>>> the first page.
>>
>> I just tried that exact search. 5 of the 10 results on the first page
>> included (attempted) implementations of atoi() -- most of them
>> incorrect. Is that what you meant when you said the results weren't
>> useful?
>
> The first ten results were either about /using/ atoi, or various
> assorted attempts to write a function like atoi, none of which seemed
> likely to be an official implementation from a C library, or were more
> generally about the C runtime library.
"Yes" would have been a perfectly good answer to my question.
What exactly do you mean by "official"? Neither glibc nor any other
implementation has any official standing as far as the C standard is
concerned. An implementation is conforming or not.
> The second page was more of the same. With a smattering of C++ versions.
>
> It's only when you start using "glibc atoi function source" that you get
> more relevant results. So it's this "glibc" that appears to be the magic
> keyword, that you have to know about.
glibc is *one* C library implementation. Yes, it's GNU-specific. If
you don't care about GNU-specific code, you don't need to know about it.
What exactly are you complaining about?
> What why should anyone know about "glibc"?
Why not?
Now you know about glibc. You should now know what it is. (And BTW if
you're using C on Windows, you're probably not using it glibc.)
What exactly are you complaining about?
> It doesn't appear in K&R or
> the C Standard.
Of course not. Did you expect it to?
> It's also gnu-specific, but there must be plenty of
> other C libraries (and people here are fond of pointing out that there
> is no connection with a C compiler and a particular library. Apparently
> they all interoperable.).
Some of them are interoperable. Some are not. There is no
requirement for a given library implementation to work with any
given compiler. If a compiler and library work together correctly,
they can be the basis of a conforming C implementation. If not,
they can't.
Come on, you know this stuff, don't you?
> I don't know however what search terms Ben used; or which search engine
> (I used google).
Perhaps if you could clarify just what you're looking for, we could help
you find it.
If you're looking for a definitive implementation of atoi(), there's no
such thing. If you're looking for one particular implementation, that's
going to depend on which one you want. In some cases, the source won't
be available.
It might also help to know *why* you want the source code for atoi().
You certainly don't need that to be able to use it (which is why
implementers don't generally don't go out of their way to make it
easy to find).
--
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]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3khod$k80$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100101 |
On 23/12/2016 23:12, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 23/12/2016 21:08, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Maybe you already knew enough to type in the right search terms. Doing >>>> something like "c atoi function source" didn't give anything useful on >>>> the first page. >>> >>> I just tried that exact search. 5 of the 10 results on the first page >>> included (attempted) implementations of atoi() -- most of them >>> incorrect. Is that what you meant when you said the results weren't >>> useful? >> >> The first ten results were either about /using/ atoi, or various >> assorted attempts to write a function like atoi, none of which seemed >> likely to be an official implementation from a C library, or were more >> generally about the C runtime library. > > "Yes" would have been a perfectly good answer to my question. > > What exactly do you mean by "official"? Neither glibc nor any other > implementation has any official standing as far as the C standard is > concerned. An implementation is conforming or not. > >> The second page was more of the same. With a smattering of C++ versions. >> >> It's only when you start using "glibc atoi function source" that you get >> more relevant results. So it's this "glibc" that appears to be the magic >> keyword, that you have to know about. > > glibc is *one* C library implementation. Yes, it's GNU-specific. If > you don't care about GNU-specific code, you don't need to know about it. > > What exactly are you complaining about? > >> What why should anyone know about "glibc"? > > Why not? > > Now you know about glibc. You should now know what it is. (And BTW if > you're using C on Windows, you're probably not using it glibc.) > > What exactly are you complaining about? > >> It doesn't appear in K&R or >> the C Standard. > > Of course not. Did you expect it to? > >> It's also gnu-specific, but there must be plenty of >> other C libraries (and people here are fond of pointing out that there >> is no connection with a C compiler and a particular library. Apparently >> they all interoperable.). > > Some of them are interoperable. Some are not. There is no > requirement for a given library implementation to work with any > given compiler. If a compiler and library work together correctly, > they can be the basis of a conforming C implementation. If not, > they can't. > > Come on, you know this stuff, don't you? > >> I don't know however what search terms Ben used; or which search engine >> (I used google). > > Perhaps if you could clarify just what you're looking for, we could help > you find it. > > If you're looking for a definitive implementation of atoi(), there's no > such thing. If you're looking for one particular implementation, that's > going to depend on which one you want. In some cases, the source won't > be available. > > It might also help to know *why* you want the source code for atoi(). > You certainly don't need that to be able to use it (which is why > implementers don't generally don't go out of their way to make it > easy to find). I'm not sure about the point of your post. /I'm/ not looking for the atoi source; the OP is. I think. I remarked that finding an atoi implementation from an actual library seemed elusive enough to make it easier to just write one. Ben said he managed it in 20 seconds. I then suggested he might have been using his expert knowledge to more easily pin point the source which is why it only took 20 seconds. Point made and end of story. What do I have to be constantly on the defensive? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 04:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87h95u9d8d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #100104 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > I remarked that finding an atoi implementation from an actual library > seemed elusive enough to make it easier to just write one. Ben said he > managed it in 20 seconds. I then suggested he might have been using > his expert knowledge to more easily pin point the source which is why > it only took 20 seconds. I searched for gnu atoi source, IIRC. Is that using expert knowledge? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 15:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o3m35q$lbc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100107 |
On 24/12/2016 04:12, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > <snip> >> I remarked that finding an atoi implementation from an actual library >> seemed elusive enough to make it easier to just write one. Ben said he >> managed it in 20 seconds. I then suggested he might have been using >> his expert knowledge to more easily pin point the source which is why >> it only took 20 seconds. > > I searched for gnu atoi source, IIRC. Is that using expert knowledge? The gnu part, yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 11:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <o3lit1$uf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100104 |
On 24/12/2016 02:08, BartC wrote: > [Why] do I have to be constantly on the defensive? Because, whether you realize it (which would make you an effective troll) or not (which would make you a royal PITA) your unwillingness to learn anything about "formal" C, and your eagerness to flaunt the supposed or imagined benefits of your C-like languages over C (in a C newsgroup nonetheless), do have a tendency to drive some participants up the wall.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 12:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <o3lqmg$pn5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100117 |
On 24/12/2016 10:34, Noob wrote: > On 24/12/2016 02:08, BartC wrote: > >> [Why] do I have to be constantly on the defensive? > > Because, whether you realize it (which would make you an effective troll) > or not (which would make you a royal PITA) your unwillingness to learn > anything about "formal" C, and your eagerness to flaunt the supposed or > imagined benefits of your C-like languages over C (in a C newsgroup > nonetheless), do have a tendency to drive some participants up the wall. I remember attempting to learn French numbers a few years ago and was surprised at how weird they got from 80 onwards (so 86 is 4-twenties and 6, and 93 is 4-twenties and thirteen). Yet Swiss-French apparently uses 8-tens and 6, and 9-tens and 3, just like we do. If I was a Swiss living in France I don't think I'd be able to resist showing the natives how to count properly! Rather than having to count their way. Anyway next year I might have a go at doing a C compiler, then I can bore everyone showing them how /that/ should be done! (But why wait? Here are some early thoughts: https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/ccp.md) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 13:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Typo or freudian slip? (Was: Inadvertent trolls) |
| Message-ID | <o3ls97$j6b$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #100131 |
In article <o3lqmg$pn5$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
...
>Anyway next year I might have a go at doing a C compiler, then I can
>bore everyone showing them how /that/ should be done!
>
>
>(But why wait? Here are some early thoughts:
>https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/ccp.md)
^
c or g?
--
First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.
- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 14:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Typo or freudian slip? (Was: Inadvertent trolls) |
| Message-ID | <o3lv3n$8a0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100136 |
On 24/12/2016 13:13, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <o3lqmg$pn5$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > ... >> Anyway next year I might have a go at doing a C compiler, then I can >> bore everyone showing them how /that/ should be done! >> >> >> (But why wait? Here are some early thoughts: >> https://github.com/bartg/... > > c or g? g. Maybe bartc was taken and the g signifies github. I can't remember. But the link should work. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 12:36 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <lntw9t9i8u.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #100131 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 24/12/2016 10:34, Noob wrote:
>> On 24/12/2016 02:08, BartC wrote:
>>> [Why] do I have to be constantly on the defensive?
>>
>> Because, whether you realize it (which would make you an effective troll)
>> or not (which would make you a royal PITA) your unwillingness to learn
>> anything about "formal" C, and your eagerness to flaunt the supposed or
>> imagined benefits of your C-like languages over C (in a C newsgroup
>> nonetheless), do have a tendency to drive some participants up the wall.
>
> I remember attempting to learn French numbers a few years ago and was
> surprised at how weird they got from 80 onwards (so 86 is 4-twenties and
> 6, and 93 is 4-twenties and thirteen).
>
> Yet Swiss-French apparently uses 8-tens and 6, and 9-tens and 3, just
> like we do. If I was a Swiss living in France I don't think I'd be able
> to resist showing the natives how to count properly! Rather than having
> to count their way.
And it would be interesting to see how that would work out.
I suspect you'd spend a great deal of time explaining to the French
that their numbering system is inefficient, and the Swiss-French
version is much more logical -- *as if they weren't already perfectly
aware of that*.
Just like you explain to us that C has problems that we already know
about, and ignore any attempts to explain the historical basis for
those problems and ways to work with the language in spite of them.
--
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]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 13:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <1b69ab1f-2f44-42ee-a685-73fd7c0c4c64@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100192 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 8:37:00 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > Yet Swiss-French apparently uses 8-tens and 6, and 9-tens and 3, just > > like we do. If I was a Swiss living in France I don't think I'd be able > > to resist showing the natives how to count properly! Rather than having > > to count their way. > > And it would be interesting to see how that would work out. > > I suspect you'd spend a great deal of time explaining to the French > that their numbering system is inefficient, and the Swiss-French > version is much more logical -- *as if they weren't already perfectly > aware of that*. > > Just like you explain to us that C has problems that we already know > about, and ignore any attempts to explain the historical basis for > those problems and ways to work with the language in spite of them. > Just as in English we used to say "five score and ten", or "two dozen". You'll still occasionally hear the latter, but the first is now pretty archaic. In French they've kept "fourscore" in general use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-26 18:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <87vau6tu29.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #100198 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 8:37:00 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: >> I suspect you'd spend a great deal of time explaining to the French >> that their numbering system is inefficient, and the Swiss-French >> version is much more logical -- *as if they weren't already perfectly >> aware of that*. > Just as in English we used to say "five score and ten", or "two dozen". > You'll still occasionally hear the latter, but the first is now pretty > archaic. In French they've kept "fourscore" in general use. When it comes to visesimal number systems, the French are amateurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_numerals
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 23:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: C interpreter |
| Message-ID | <o3mtd6$den$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100131 |
On 24/12/2016 13:47, BartC wrote: > https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/ccp.md https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_C_Compiler https://stackoverflow.com/questions/584714/is-there-an-interpreter-for-c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-25 00:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: C interpreter |
| Message-ID | <o3n40r$3mp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100201 |
On 24/12/2016 22:39, Noob wrote: > On 24/12/2016 13:47, BartC wrote: > >> https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/ccp.md > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_C_Compiler Yes, I've known about that for a couple of years (before that I thought it was just a toy, but it's not). In fact it meant I hadn't bothered with the idea of a C compiler sooner, as TCC proved you could get compile times in the 100's Kloc per second range, so it didn't need me to show that. But some differences here: https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/tcc.md > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/584714/is-there-an-interpreter-for-c That would be intriguing but I'm not planning an interpreted version. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 11:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inadvertent trolls |
| Message-ID | <o4akfh$7dn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100131 |
Le 24/12/2016 à 13:47, BartC a écrit : > On 24/12/2016 10:34, Noob wrote: >> On 24/12/2016 02:08, BartC wrote: >> >>> [Why] do I have to be constantly on the defensive? >> >> Because, whether you realize it (which would make you an effective troll) >> or not (which would make you a royal PITA) your unwillingness to learn >> anything about "formal" C, and your eagerness to flaunt the supposed or >> imagined benefits of your C-like languages over C (in a C newsgroup >> nonetheless), do have a tendency to drive some participants up the wall. > > I remember attempting to learn French numbers a few years ago and was > surprised at how weird they got from 80 onwards (so 86 is 4-twenties and > 6, and 93 is 4-twenties and thirteen). > > Yet Swiss-French apparently uses 8-tens and 6, and 9-tens and 3, just > like we do. If I was a Swiss living in France I don't think I'd be able > to resist showing the natives how to count properly! Rather than having > to count their way. > > Anyway next year I might have a go at doing a C compiler, then I can > bore everyone showing them how /that/ should be done! > > > (But why wait? Here are some early thoughts: > https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/ccp.md) > > I have done exactly that some 4-5 years ago. Source code available (at a price).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web