Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #91178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:36 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 16:42 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 01:47 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 17:20 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 00:43 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 05:41 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:02 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 06:26 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:45 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 09:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:30 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 14:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 01:14 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 11:37 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 12:51 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-29 08:36 -0600
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 05:32 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 14:42 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 06:59 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 16:08 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-29 09:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 17:55 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:00 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 11:48 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-29 21:12 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 19:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 14:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:54 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 10:30 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 08:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 07:34 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 14:10 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-29 23:36 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-30 11:22 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-30 01:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:08 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 21:16 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-02 13:33 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:36 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 08:19 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 10:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 11:16 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 11:49 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 12:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 13:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 14:05 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-28 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 18:03 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-29 10:50 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-07-28 10:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-28 08:11 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:46 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 16:50 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:18 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:37 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 14:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:05 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 16:04 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-01 09:26 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 10:12 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 10:21 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 11:01 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-01 11:44 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-02 12:05 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-01 15:48 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-08-02 20:09 -0400
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 06:42 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:02 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ivan Godard <ivan@millcomputing.com> - 2016-08-03 03:15 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-03 11:53 +0000
Re: Setting architectural features in stone supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-03 08:57 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-03 10:52 +0200
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-03 11:09 +0100
Re: Setting architectural features in stone Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-03 08:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-01 10:51 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 13:13 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:27 -0700
Setting architectural features in stone Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-08-01 10:00 -0700
Re: Setting architectural features in stone anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-08-02 10:29 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-01 16:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 15:53 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 16:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-04 16:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-04 20:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-04 23:52 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 03:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:48 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 20:07 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-05 13:09 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:24 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:25 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 08:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 16:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:41 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 19:45 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-06 09:47 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:11 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 21:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-06 19:12 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-06 22:38 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:06 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:04 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 20:24 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:30 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:03 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:36 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:11 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:02 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:35 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 08:07 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 21:22 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:08 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-08 13:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:54 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:50 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 15:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 09:14 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:22 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-09 11:12 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-09 15:25 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 19:50 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 16:44 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 17:38 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 20:06 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-09 11:57 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-09 08:51 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:15 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-08 11:57 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-08 23:04 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 15:20 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:27 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 09:21 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 17:33 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-08 14:35 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-05 14:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 14:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 13:53 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 14:09 +0100
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 10:08 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-07 17:34 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 21:37 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-07 19:18 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-08 12:31 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 03:55 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 08:28 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-08 09:44 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-08 10:13 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 07:51 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:39 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 11:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 15:29 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-05 08:38 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-08-05 13:40 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 21:27 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-29 00:19 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-08-01 11:49 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 10:01 +0000
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:57 -0500
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 07:27 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 09:06 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-28 09:39 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-28 11:56 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-07-28 15:19 -0400
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-31 12:15 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 05:25 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-08-01 07:37 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:17 -0700
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 14:17 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-28 18:43 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-28 18:58 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-31 21:46 +0200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 16:37 +1200
Re: IEEE: C is the first programming language supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-01 07:20 -0700
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 21:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no8nce$mfv$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91862 |
On 8/7/2016 11:27 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 07/08/16 03:50, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/6/2016 11:11 AM, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know >>>> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. >>> >>> So, your example with which you're engineer friends are intimately >>> familiar is the same one you get as the top google hit for "10-bit DSP". >>> >> >> No, I didn't say my engineering friends were intimately familiar with >> it. But they are familiar with it. And I didn't have to google for it. >> >>> Incidentally "10-bit DSP technology" doesn't mean a processor with a >>> 10-bit char. There are plenty of camera devices driven by 10-bit-DACs, >>> and with a hardware processing pipeline that holds 10-bits of accuracy, >>> but these aren't running C programs with 10-bit-chars. >>> >> >> No, but in this case it does. Power utilization and size are critical >> in it. >> > > It was a specialist DSP for a particular type of camera, made some 15 > years ago. There is no indication that it is programmed in C at all - I > would be very surprised if that were the case. > > So, when asked to back up your claims about 90% of the devices around us > being microcontrollers or DSP's, with C but with CHAR_BIT != 8 (or even > a multiple of 8), your own example is an ancient assembly-programmed > device that was used in high-end studio cameras, and you found it by > googling. > David, I know you by now. You're just a troll who will contradict anything I say, and have already proven you are totally unable to admit you are wrong. So piss off, asshole. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 17:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <no7ikt$2np$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91761 |
On 05/08/16 21:28, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:38:22 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I'm not sure which DSP chips you're working with, but more and more >>> consumer electronics are using CHAR_BIT of 10, 12 and even 14 or more. >>> People are wanting better audio quality than is available in 8 bit >>> chips, even in automobile electronics. And not only that, but places >>> where audio quality is not so much of a concern are using wider chips >>> because they can do more signal processing. >> >> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of >> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet >> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many advantages >> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any new >> 24-bit designs. >> > > It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. But I > do know of engineers which do. And I think they know what they're > talking about. > > One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know > which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. > > And going to a 32 bit processor requires at least a 4 layer, and often 5 > or six layer board. That is a significant increase in cost over a two > layer (top/bottom) board which can be used in many 10 and 12 bit DSPs. > The extra cost adds up and is unnecessary when all you need is 10 or 12 > bits. Additionally, it adds size to the board, which can also be > important (and more costly). Finally, power consumption is higher. > That sounds to me like you have only the vaguest general idea what you are talking about. Yes, larger and more complex chips often require more layers on the board. Yes, extra layers usually (but certainly not always) means slightly higher costs. No, 32-bit does not always mean 4 or more layers. No, using narrow width microcontrollers or DSPs does not always mean 2 layers. And certainly no, nobody uses "10-bit DSP's" in order to use 2 layer boards instead of 4 layer boards. Oh, and no, 32-bit does not necessarily mean higher power consumption, and again, nobody uses 10-bit DSPs to reduce power consumption. > Companies use what they need. And it is not a "small increase in cost" > - especially when you are talking millions of units. > Small increases in cost per device are certainly relevant when the quantities are high enough - no one will argue with that. Nor will anyone disagree that in some applications, it is important to use 2 layer or even single layer boards rather than 4 or 6 layers ones (5 layer boards do not exist). All we disagree with is your ideas about 10-bit DSPs and other such devices being 90% of the devices we have around us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-07 21:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no8nm5$od5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91861 |
On 8/7/2016 11:03 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 05/08/16 21:28, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/5/2016 2:24 PM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:38:22 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> I'm not sure which DSP chips you're working with, but more and more >>>> consumer electronics are using CHAR_BIT of 10, 12 and even 14 or more. >>>> People are wanting better audio quality than is available in 8 bit >>>> chips, even in automobile electronics. And not only that, but places >>>> where audio quality is not so much of a concern are using wider chips >>>> because they can do more signal processing. >>> >>> Can you name even one remotely-popular chip which has CHAR_BIT value of >>> anything other than 8 or 16? I'd be interested in seeing the data sheet >>> for such a thing if you can give me a link. I recall a DSP some years >>> back that used 24-bit words, but going to 32 bits offers so many >>> advantages >>> for a small increase in cost I'd be surprised if anyone is making any >>> new >>> 24-bit designs. >>> >> >> It's not something I work on, so I don't know exact chip numbers. But I >> do know of engineers which do. And I think they know what they're >> talking about. >> >> One product I know of is the Toshiba IK-6410A camera. I don't know >> which chip it uses, but it does use a 10 bit DSP. >> >> And going to a 32 bit processor requires at least a 4 layer, and often 5 >> or six layer board. That is a significant increase in cost over a two >> layer (top/bottom) board which can be used in many 10 and 12 bit DSPs. >> The extra cost adds up and is unnecessary when all you need is 10 or 12 >> bits. Additionally, it adds size to the board, which can also be >> important (and more costly). Finally, power consumption is higher. >> > > That sounds to me like you have only the vaguest general idea what you > are talking about. > A hell of a lot more than you do, as has been proven before. But then you have already shown you will never admit you are wrong. > Yes, larger and more complex chips often require more layers on the > board. Yes, extra layers usually (but certainly not always) means > slightly higher costs. > More than slightly higher costs. Management will look at any possibility of saving even $0.02 per board. Because that is pure profit. > No, 32-bit does not always mean 4 or more layers. No, using narrow > width microcontrollers or DSPs does not always mean 2 layers. And > certainly no, nobody uses "10-bit DSP's" in order to use 2 layer boards > instead of 4 layer boards. > What 32 bit microcontroller doesn't require at least 4 layers? Some examples? There are just too many pins coming out of the chip set to do it with less. > Oh, and no, 32-bit does not necessarily mean higher power consumption, > and again, nobody uses 10-bit DSPs to reduce power consumption. > Once again you show you have no idea what you are talking about. The more bits, the more active gates - and the higher power consumption, everything else being more or less equal. >> Companies use what they need. And it is not a "small increase in cost" >> - especially when you are talking millions of units. >> > > Small increases in cost per device are certainly relevant when the > quantities are high enough - no one will argue with that. Nor will > anyone disagree that in some applications, it is important to use 2 > layer or even single layer boards rather than 4 or 6 layers ones (5 > layer boards do not exist). All we disagree with is your ideas about > 10-bit DSPs and other such devices being 90% of the devices we have > around us. > > > Actually, 5 layer boards do exist; I've had to deal with a few of them. But you've already shown you have your head so far up your ass that you can see your tonsils, so that's no surprise. So piss off, asshole. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 15:11 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0qbi7FdjncU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91905 |
On 08/ 8/16 01:36 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/7/2016 11:03 AM, David Brown wrote: > >> No, 32-bit does not always mean 4 or more layers. No, using narrow >> width microcontrollers or DSPs does not always mean 2 layers. And >> certainly no, nobody uses "10-bit DSP's" in order to use 2 layer boards >> instead of 4 layer boards. >> > > What 32 bit microcontroller doesn't require at least 4 layers? Some > examples? There are just too many pins coming out of the chip set to do > it with less. You really don't have a clue, do you? I already pointed you at the STM32 family, but I guess you need more help. See http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >> Oh, and no, 32-bit does not necessarily mean higher power consumption, >> and again, nobody uses 10-bit DSPs to reduce power consumption. >> > > Once again you show you have no idea what you are talking about. The > more bits, the more active gates - and the higher power consumption, > everything else being more or less equal. Which it isn't. A typical MCU has way more gates in the memory and peripheral logic than in the core. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 09:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <no9vt3$fn$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91915 |
On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 8/16 01:36 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/7/2016 11:03 AM, David Brown wrote: >> >>> No, 32-bit does not always mean 4 or more layers. No, using narrow >>> width microcontrollers or DSPs does not always mean 2 layers. And >>> certainly no, nobody uses "10-bit DSP's" in order to use 2 layer boards >>> instead of 4 layer boards. >>> >> >> What 32 bit microcontroller doesn't require at least 4 layers? Some >> examples? There are just too many pins coming out of the chip set to do >> it with less. > > You really don't have a clue, do you? I already pointed you at the > STM32 family, but I guess you need more help. See > > http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html > I have more of a clue than you do, troll. > >>> Oh, and no, 32-bit does not necessarily mean higher power consumption, >>> and again, nobody uses 10-bit DSPs to reduce power consumption. >>> >> >> Once again you show you have no idea what you are talking about. The >> more bits, the more active gates - and the higher power consumption, >> everything else being more or less equal. > > Which it isn't. A typical MCU has way more gates in the memory and > peripheral logic than in the core. > Once again you show your lack of understanding of microprocessor design. But that's not surprising. Your ignorance is amazing. Can you walk and talk at the same time? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 07:35 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0s58dFr7hnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91953 |
On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 08/ 8/16 01:36 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>> What 32 bit microcontroller doesn't require at least 4 layers? Some >>> examples? There are just too many pins coming out of the chip set to do >>> it with less. >> >> You really don't have a clue, do you? I already pointed you at the >> STM32 family, but I guess you need more help. See >> >> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >> > > I have more of a clue than you do, troll. If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of experts. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 16:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9745a560-f307-3596-cb0f-5df17db9cb4b@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #91986 |
On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: ... >>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html ... > If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the > link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that > doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question > above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of > experts. While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have posted a link to that specific document.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 08:07 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e0s741Fr7hnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91988 |
On 08/ 9/16 08:00 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > .... >>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html > .... >> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >> experts. > > While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and > judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). > This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to > indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself > appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems > relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of > those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have > posted a link to that specific document. The small (QFP32) package, there's a drawing of one here: http://www.elnec.com/en/products/programming-adapters/DIL28_QFP32_ZIF_AVR-1/ If you are building a small board, you could even go to a single layer board for one of these. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lh07m2nx.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #91989 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > http://www.elnec.com/en/products/programming-adapters/DIL28_QFP32_ZIF_AVR-1/ > > If you are building a small board, you could even go to a single layer > board for one of these. Might prove an interesting routing exercise to get your signals where they need to go though...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noc6hl$t4s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91991 |
On 08/08/16 22:22, Gareth Owen wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> http://www.elnec.com/en/products/programming-adapters/DIL28_QFP32_ZIF_AVR-1/ >> >> If you are building a small board, you could even go to a single layer >> board for one of these. > > Might prove an interesting routing exercise to get your signals where > they need to go though... > Making such designs can be fun, though it's seldom particularly useful. You usually have to "cheat" a little, such as with jumper wires, carefully placed through-hole components rather than just SMD, etc. Before trying to do the layout, I recommend practising with the game "Flow free": <http://games.cdn.famobi.com/html5games/f/flow-free/v4/?fg_domain=play.famobi.com&fg_aid=A1000-1&fg_uid=8557fc8f-26b3-4bc1-a770-d4fa798a30ca&fg_pid=4638e320-4444-4514-81c4-d80a8c662371&fg_beat=416#_ga=1.219049497.1682726102.1470733427> (Also available for Android, and probably in a dozen different versions and variations for PC's.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57c0c92c-e55b-417e-a6cc-49724bef3eaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91989 |
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 4:07:39 PM UTC-4, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 9/16 08:00 AM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > > On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > >> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > > .... > >>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html > > .... > >> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the > >> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that > >> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question > >> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of > >> experts. > > > > While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and > > judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). > > This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to > > indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself > > appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems > > relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of > > those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have > > posted a link to that specific document. > > The small (QFP32) package, It would have been easier for me to find if you had written "LQFP 32", since that's what it actually says on the page. > there's a drawing of one here: > > http://www.elnec.com/en/products/programming-adapters/DIL28_QFP32_ZIF_AVR-1/ I'm quite sure Jerry will come up with an explanation of why this chip doesn't qualify as a counter example. That explanation will almost certainly consist of personal attacks on you, rather than discussion of the characteristics of this chip.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noc98h$5k7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91988 |
On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > ... >>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>> > ... >> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >> experts. > > While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and > judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). > This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to > indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself > appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems > relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of > those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have > posted a link to that specific document. > There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and a ground plane to reduce electrical noise".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nocjii$82v$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #92007 |
On 8/9/2016 5:54 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> ... >>>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>>> >> ... >>> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >>> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >>> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >>> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >>> experts. >> >> While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and >> judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). >> This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to >> indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself >> appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems >> relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of >> those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have >> posted a link to that specific document. >> > > There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for > working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very > specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large > processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally > the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. > > So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, > with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to > route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or > compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and > a ground plane to reduce electrical noise". > Experienced designers will look at the entire schematic before claiming the number of layers required. Only someone with no experience would ever claim they knew the number of layers by looking at one chip. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 15:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nocl8f$eri$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92011 |
On 09/08/16 14:50, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 8/9/2016 5:54 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>>>> >>> ... >>>> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >>>> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >>>> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >>>> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >>>> experts. >>> >>> While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and >>> judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). >>> This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to >>> indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself >>> appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems >>> relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of >>> those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have >>> posted a link to that specific document. >>> >> >> There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for >> working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very >> specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large >> processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally >> the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. >> >> So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, >> with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to >> route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or >> compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and >> a ground plane to reduce electrical noise". >> > > Experienced designers will look at the entire schematic before claiming > the number of layers required. Only someone with no experience would > ever claim they knew the number of layers by looking at one chip. > Which leads us full-circle to your comment about 32-bit processors or microcontrollers needing 4 layers without any more information than the width of the processor core, never mind knowing the exact chip. And experienced designs often /can/ have a good idea of the complexity of a board or layers based on the key chip or chips. Clearly the details of the rest of the board are needed before being sure (and just the schematic may not be enough), but you can get a good idea of what you will be dealing with from the main components.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 09:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7ed70f5-dee8-4378-9ace-a38880d241cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92014 |
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 4:19:19 PM UTC+3, David Brown wrote: > > ....... > I have never read this forum before. Out of interest, David, why do you continue to argue with Mr. Stuckle? After reading most of this thread I can come to only one conclusion - he shell be ignored. Does he have a history that suggest that he is capable to behave in non-trollish ways and, may be, even to contribute something useful to discussions?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nod3fp$255$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92019 |
On 09/08/16 18:14, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 4:19:19 PM UTC+3, David Brown wrote: >> >> ....... >> > > I have never read this forum before. > > Out of interest, David, why do you continue to argue with Mr. > Stuckle? After reading most of this thread I can come to only one > conclusion - he shell be ignored. People argue with Jerry for various reasons, I think. Some seem to do it for entertainment. Others hope that maybe he will learn something. I suspect that many do so simply because it galls them to see someone so wrong. And I think many people feel that since there are others who might be reading (or searching these threads in the future), we don't want incorrect posts standing without making it clear that they are wrong. > > Does he have a history that suggest that he is capable to behave in > non-trollish ways and, may be, even to contribute something useful to > discussions? > > He has a history that suggests that he has plenty of programming experience and knows a thing or two. Often his first couple of posts in a thread are not bad (though I can't say they have been insightful or added much). But once someone contradicts him or corrects him, he goes bananas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 11:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nocrsd$6cv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92007 |
On 08/09/2016 05:54 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >> ... >>>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>>> >> ... >>> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >>> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >>> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >>> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >>> experts. >> >> While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and >> judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). >> This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to >> indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself >> appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems >> relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of >> those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have >> posted a link to that specific document. >> > > There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for > working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very > specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large > processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally > the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. > > So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, > with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to > route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or > compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and > a ground plane to reduce electrical noise". So the number of layers is a design choice constrained by the chip's design, rather than a characteristic of the chip itself. In that case, if Jerry's wrong, there should exist PCB designs with less than 4 layers incorporating this chip, or some other 32 bit chip. Such a design would be definitive counter-example to his claim, whereas the chip itself is, at best, debatable evidence (and Jerry is, of course, debating it). Can you identify and provide the details of a PCB design with fewer than 4 layers incorporating a 32 bit microcontroller?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nocsl0$kb5$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #92017 |
In article <nocrsd$6cv$1@dont-email.me>, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: >On 08/09/2016 05:54 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>>>> >>> ... >>>> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >>>> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >>>> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >>>> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >>>> experts. >>> >>> While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and >>> judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). >>> This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to >>> indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself >>> appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems >>> relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of >>> those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have >>> posted a link to that specific document. >>> >> >> There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for >> working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very >> specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large >> processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally >> the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. >> >> So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, >> with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to >> route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or >> compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and >> a ground plane to reduce electrical noise". > >So the number of layers is a design choice constrained by the chip's >design, rather than a characteristic of the chip itself. In that case, >if Jerry's wrong, there should exist PCB designs with less than 4 layers >incorporating this chip, or some other 32 bit chip. Such a design would >be definitive counter-example to his claim, whereas the chip itself is, >at best, debatable evidence (and Jerry is, of course, debating it). Can >you identify and provide the details of a PCB design with fewer than 4 >layers incorporating a 32 bit microcontroller? How about a single layer homebrew board with a 32-bit ARM Cortex-M3? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JhCtATFVEU - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 19:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nod54m$7t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92017 |
On 09/08/16 17:12, James Kuyper wrote: > On 08/09/2016 05:54 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 08/08/16 22:00, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 08/08/2016 03:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>>>>> >>> ... >>>> If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the >>>> link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that >>>> doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question >>>> above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of >>>> experts. >>> >>> While Jerry might have a league of experts to consult, but I don't (and >>> judging from the advice he's said they've given him, I'm glad of it). >>> This isn't my area of expertise. What does it say on that page to >>> indicate that it uses fewer then 4 layers? The word "layer" itself >>> appears on that page only once, and not in a context that seems >>> relevant. There's links to many other documents there - if it's one of >>> those documents that contains the relevant information, you should have >>> posted a link to that specific document. >>> >> >> There are rarely fixed rules about the number of layers you need for >> working with a particular chip. Manufacturers sometimes give very >> specific routing patterns for particular chips, such as between large >> processor chips and their chipsets and/or memory banks. But normally >> the number of layers needed is a matter of judgement for the PCB designer. >> >> So people experienced with PCB design can look at a chip like this one, >> with 32 legs along the sides of the chip, and say "it should be fine to >> route this using two layers". Or they may look at a more complicated or >> compact device and say "it will need at least three routing layers, and >> a ground plane to reduce electrical noise". > > So the number of layers is a design choice constrained by the chip's > design, rather than a characteristic of the chip itself. Basically, it takes a certain amount of board space to route signals from a pin on one device to other devices on the board. If you have a lot of these signals in a small space, and can't fit them side by side, you need to use more routing layers so that they can pass each other - there is a limit to how thin and tightly packed you want the lines. So lots of pins in total, or high pin density (such as ball grid array packages rather than packages with legs around the edges), typically mean more layers needed for routing. But a package with fewer pins and plenty of space between them can be routed on two layers regardless of the width of the internal cpu. Other issues that can affect the choice are the need for controlled impedance of high-speed digital interfaces (USB, HDMI, Ethernet, etc.), power routing, noise on analogue signals, etc. > In that case, > if Jerry's wrong, there should exist PCB designs with less than 4 layers > incorporating this chip, or some other 32 bit chip. Such a design would > be definitive counter-example to his claim, whereas the chip itself is, > at best, debatable evidence (and Jerry is, of course, debating it). Can > you identify and provide the details of a PCB design with fewer than 4 > layers incorporating a 32 bit microcontroller? > I've made a couple myself with 32-bit processors or microcontrollers and 2 layers, though most of the boards I designed were 4 layers (and one that was 8 or 10 layers). It's a while since I have done much PCB design - it is other colleagues who do most of that these days. And a good number of the boards we make have chips similar to the ST device (with a 32-bit Arm Cortex M microcontroller) - some 2 layers, though again most have 4 layers. (4 layers makes it a lot easier to have good EMC characteristics and a clean design - for most of our designs, it is worth the small extra cost. Failing the EMC tests and having to re-spin and re-test is expensive, and a risk best avoided.) And I have also made 4 layer designs with 8-bit microcontrollers. But all of the designs here are proprietary, and I can't give links. In most industrial and small or medium quantity commercial designs, 4 layers are typical with 2 layers only used for simple cards or ones where price is a serious premium. 4 layers makes it much easier to get good EMC characteristics, avoid electrical noise (especially for analogue parts), and get controlled impedances for high speed interfaces. More layers are used for more complex designs. This applies whether you have a microcontroller or not, and regardless of the bit width of the microcontroller. But the question is whether you /need/ 4 layers just because the microcontroller or microprocessor is 32-bit, and the answer there is definitely no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-08 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <noaqv6$4kl$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #91986 |
On 8/8/2016 3:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/ 9/16 01:02 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 8/7/2016 11:11 PM, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 08/ 8/16 01:36 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> >>>> What 32 bit microcontroller doesn't require at least 4 layers? Some >>>> examples? There are just too many pins coming out of the chip set >>>> to do >>>> it with less. >>> >>> You really don't have a clue, do you? I already pointed you at the >>> STM32 family, but I guess you need more help. See >>> >>> http://www.st.com/content/st_com/en/products/microcontrollers/stm32-32-bit-arm-cortex-mcus/stm32f3-series/stm32f303/stm32f303k6.html >>> >>> >> >> I have more of a clue than you do, troll. > > If you use the wee gadget under you hand called a mouse and click on the > link above, you will see the datasheet for a 32 bit microcontroller that > doesn't require at least a 4 layer board. That answers your question > above. If you have trouble reading it, consult one of your legion of > experts. > Your microcontroller doesn't. But it multiplexes the signals on the pins, requiring more for support chips. That's where the 4 layer boards come in. But if you understood ANYTHING about hardware design, I wouldn't have to tell you that. BTW - how's that 10GB fiber network to your office coming? ROFLMAO! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web