Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #96073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:17 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 14:25 +0000
[OI] chat "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:26 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:29 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 20:48 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:51 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-08 21:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 20:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 14:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 01:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 17:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-12 15:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 22:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 22:56 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 23:40 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:47 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:19 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-08 23:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 11:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 11:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:15 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 13:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 05:44 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:19 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 07:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 13:13 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 14:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:22 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 10:55 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:01 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 17:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 13:37 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:16 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:40 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 14:02 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 05:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 15:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:32 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:34 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 00:43 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 20:00 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-09 13:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 20:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:56 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 15:49 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 15:37 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:22 +0300
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 12:29 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:02 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:24 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 12:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:12 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-09 22:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:10 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:32 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:06 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:14 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 08:33 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 10:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:09 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:25 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:29 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:59 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:10 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:42 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:46 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 16:27 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 19:29 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 13:45 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:58 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:57 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:16 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 13:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:58 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:51 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:27 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-10 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:38 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:18 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 00:27 -0600
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 21:24 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-14 09:45 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:19 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-11 00:22 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 06:56 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:09 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:56 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:37 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 08:07 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 22:43 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 09:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 11:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-10 15:05 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 16:25 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:14 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 23:01 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:35 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 08:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 12:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 13:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-10 14:38 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 06:09 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-11 21:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-11 14:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-12 14:17 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 10:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 19:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-12 16:13 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:28 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat <flatfinger@casperkitty.com> - 2016-11-12 17:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 14:37 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 18:26 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:08 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-13 15:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:10 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 18:42 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:49 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-14 12:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 12:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 08:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:50 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 12:02 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-17 12:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-09 13:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-09 23:43 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:57 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:08 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-11 14:41 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:55 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:32 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-11 16:11 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:03 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:30 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 21:51 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:16 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-12 23:04 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:05 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:43 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:49 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:33 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 22:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-12 18:14 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-13 11:38 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 00:44 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 11:45 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-14 09:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 14:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 22:59 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:15 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-14 15:40 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-14 20:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 17:20 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-09 19:49 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:14 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:40 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-12 11:42 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:18 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-13 11:46 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-10 16:22 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-11 16:52 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 14:57 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 00:13 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 15:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 03:23 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 08:01 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 12:27 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-09 22:32 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 06:43 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 20:30 +1300
Re: Compiler design in C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:35 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:12 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-10 11:19 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 03:46 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:01 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-11 16:04 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:36 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 17:41 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 13:58 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 08:10 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-09 10:35 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 14:21 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 23:28 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 22:47 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-10 09:52 +0000
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 07:33 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:03 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-10 08:15 -0500
Re: Compiler design in C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-10 14:47 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-08 22:55 +0100
Re: Compiler design in C? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 19:44 +0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:18 -0800
Re: Compiler design in C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 18:25 -0800
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 21:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o000p1$faf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96216 |
On 09/11/16 20:57, Gareth Owen wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 08/11/16 23:33, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: >>> >>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 21:12, David Brown a écrit : >>>> >>>>> C++ is the obvious choice if you want a fast compiler. >>>> >>>> What? >>>> >>>> It is incredible the things that C++ heads will tell people? A c++ >>>> compiler is incredibly slow. lcc-win is 4 or 5 times faster than gcc >>>> even when gcc is just compiling C. >>> >>> GCC isn't written in C++. >>> >> >> gcc was originally written C. A fair number of years ago they moved to >> "C++ compatible subset of C". Now it is a mixture of C and C++ (I am >> not sure if the C code is compiled as C++, but it is certainly valid to >> do so). > > Yes, but there are so few C++ features used at present that to declare > that its sloth is because of C++ is deeply disingenuous. > The speed (or lack thereof) of gcc long pre-dates the move to C++. >> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >> in C++. > > This would've been a much better example. > As clang has gained more features, coming closer to par with gcc, it has become slower. And gcc, perhaps motivated by competition with clang, has been getting faster. I believe that current versions are now fairly similar when heavy optimisations are enabled. >> Clearly, you /can/ write a C compiler in C. The question is, if one >> were planning to write a new C compiler from scratch, without bias based >> on which languages you are familiar with and what existing code you have >> written (but taking into account easily available common libraries), >> would C be a sensible choice of development language for your compiler? > > No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for > anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87h97fzvmx.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96219 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >> Yes, but there are so few C++ features used at present that to declare >> that its sloth is because of C++ is deeply disingenuous. >> > > The speed (or lack thereof) of gcc long pre-dates the move to C++. We are in violent agreement. >>> The other big modern compiler project is llvm/clang - which is written >>> in C++. >> >> This would've been a much better example. >> > > As clang has gained more features, coming closer to par with gcc, it > has become slower. And gcc, perhaps motivated by competition with > clang, has been getting faster. I believe that current versions are > now fairly similar when heavy optimisations are enabled. Again, I concur entirely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 22:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o005sr$3jt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96216 |
Le 09/11/2016 à 20:57, Gareth Owen a écrit : > No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for > anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. OK. Nice. You are entitled to your opinion but what is the point of coming into a C forum to say that? If you do not like C it's OK with me of course. But what is the point of coming here to say it? Personally I do not participate much in C++ forums unless I have a question because my c++ is VERY bad. And will stay that way. I think that c++ can't be used so much for serious things, thing that stay up and running for years. I like C because of its simplicity, this unassuming stuff of just telling the machine what you want it to do. Containers and other data structures can be written in C much better than what I did of course. But my work gives a serious hint to everybody that the complexity of c++ is not needed. We can have all the high level abstraction of c++ without any of its incovenients. Yes, even a primitive method of generics is quite possible using that old but very powerful machine: The pre-processor. Templates are a good idea but beyond that the real progress would be to specify the compile time code generation in a simpler way, so that the user could influence code generation directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e0ae6786-8f18-405e-83df-ad345f735627@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96236 |
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 3:54:09 PM UTC-6, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 09/11/2016 à 20:57, Gareth Owen a écrit : > > No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for > > anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. > > OK. Nice. You are entitled to your opinion but what is the point of > coming into a C forum to say that? > > If you do not like C it's OK with me of course. But what is the point of > coming here to say it? I like the language Dennis Ritchie invented and called C, but I agree with the opinion that neither it, nor any of the more modern derivatives that share the name, are a sensible choice for most application-development or high-end-computing tasks. C is a uniquely good language for some purposes, but that doesn't mean it should be used for everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 06:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <874m3fzv4e.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #96236 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes: > Le 09/11/2016 à 20:57, Gareth Owen a écrit : >> No. Honestly, I don't think C is a sensible implementation language for >> anything but constrained embedded work and hardcore bit-banging these days. > > OK. Nice. You are entitled to your opinion but what is the point of > coming into a C forum to say that? Because I use C to do both those things. > Personally I do not participate much in C++ forums unless I have a > question because my c++ is VERY bad. I don't think C is bad at all. It's extremely good. At the things for which it is extremely good. > I like C because of its simplicity, this unassuming stuff of just > telling the machine what you want it to do. Duff's device is simple, eh? OK. Sure. > Containers and other data structures can be written in C much better > than what I did of course. But my work gives a serious hint to > everybody that the complexity of c++ is not needed. The C committee think your work is not needed at all. They think every C programmer should roll their own containers, which suggests that their belief in what C is for is probably closer to mine than yours. > We can have all the high level abstraction of c++ without any of its > incovenients. Yes, even a primitive method of generics is quite > possible using that old but very powerful machine: The pre-processor. Yes, and I can build a table with butter knife and paper glue. But it will be far more fragile than one built using tools designed for the task.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 13:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eeafdd9e-dfad-4a43-83e0-e30f3ed50a21@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96120 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1:51:32 PM UTC-6, Thiago Adams wrote: > On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 5:48:41 PM UTC-2, David Brown wrote: > > > I really doubt that anyone who understands what they are doing would use > > C for writing a compiler these days - unless it was just for fun. > > > What is the problem? Same as any other non-trivial application - C's lack of built-in container types and relatively primitive text processing capabilities. > What is the alternative? C++ ? Sure, or Java, C#, whatever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 23:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtib1$3pu$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96141 |
Le 08/11/2016 à 22:44, John Bode a écrit : > Same as any other non-trivial application - C's lack of built-in container > types and relatively primitive text processing capabilities. I wrote the C containers library, and spent 5 000 dollars to propose it at the C committee. Most members of the C committee said that we should use C++. Actually one person present said that all C code will be compiled as C++ in his company. I lost the bucks and the C committee refused to accept even the possibility of doing a containers library in C. We should all write c++ now. You know that maybe? What is your opinion, may I ask?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 14:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtips$7u0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96147 |
On 11/8/2016 2:07 PM, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 08/11/2016 à 22:44, John Bode a écrit : >> Same as any other non-trivial application - C's lack of built-in >> container >> types and relatively primitive text processing capabilities. > > I wrote the C containers library, and spent 5 000 dollars to propose it > at the C committee. Most members of the C committee said that we should > use C++. Actually one person present said that all C code will be > compiled as C++ in his company. > > I lost the bucks and the C committee refused to accept even the > possibility of doing a containers library in C. We should all write c++ > now. > > You know that maybe? > > What is your opinion, may I ask? Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!? ;^o
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 23:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nvtjdk$b23$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96148 |
Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit : > Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!? Their opinion is more "subtle" than that. C should not be used for new developments and the task of the committee is to guarantee that the legacy code that has been written in C still runs Nothing else. There were also people in the phone that said that "we will make us ridiculous if we even talk about doing that" True, there were some people that defended my point of view. I just asked if after writing the library, they would be interested in continuing the work in a technical comittee to add multi-threading and other complex parts of the specification. In just 90 minutes my proposal was gone, principally from mr Plaugher, that plaided against any such undertaking. The reaction in this group was similar. It is always ignored, nobody has ever read that code or done anything that goes into that direction. Here people are respected by the speed that they have reciting the paragraphs and sub paragraphs of the standard. In general, all innovations that I have proposed were laughed at or just deningrated as "non standard"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 14:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtkf6$eo5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96150 |
On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!?
>
> Their opinion is more "subtle" than that.
>
> C should not be used for new developments and the task of the committee
> is to guarantee that the legacy code that has been written in C still runs
>
> Nothing else.
>
> There were also people in the phone that said that
>
> "we will make us ridiculous if we even talk about doing that"
>
> True, there were some people that defended my point of view. I just
> asked if after writing the library, they would be interested in
> continuing the work in a technical comittee to add multi-threading and
> other complex parts of the specification.
>
> In just 90 minutes my proposal was gone, principally from mr Plaugher,
> that plaided against any such undertaking.
>
> The reaction in this group was similar. It is always ignored, nobody has
> ever read that code or done anything that goes into that direction.
>
> Here people are respected by the speed that they have reciting the
> paragraphs and sub paragraphs of the standard.
>
> In general, all innovations that I have proposed were laughed at or just
> deningrated as "non standard"
I just installed llc-win64, here is my first program:
___________________________________________
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc,char *argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!");
printf("\nHit <ENTER> to exit...\n");
fflush(stdout);
getchar();
return 0;
}
___________________________________________
works fine. I am going to try and build the following program next:
http://pastebin.com/D7N4vBWa
A crude older version of my Funny Fractal Encryption program.
Thank you. BTW, IIRC, you have 128-bit floating point in here?
Thanks again Jacob.
:^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 14:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtkmo$fko$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96154 |
On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!?
>>
>> Their opinion is more "subtle" than that.
>>
>> C should not be used for new developments and the task of the committee
>> is to guarantee that the legacy code that has been written in C still
>> runs
>>
>> Nothing else.
>>
>> There were also people in the phone that said that
>>
>> "we will make us ridiculous if we even talk about doing that"
>>
>> True, there were some people that defended my point of view. I just
>> asked if after writing the library, they would be interested in
>> continuing the work in a technical comittee to add multi-threading and
>> other complex parts of the specification.
>>
>> In just 90 minutes my proposal was gone, principally from mr Plaugher,
>> that plaided against any such undertaking.
>>
>> The reaction in this group was similar. It is always ignored, nobody has
>> ever read that code or done anything that goes into that direction.
>>
>> Here people are respected by the speed that they have reciting the
>> paragraphs and sub paragraphs of the standard.
>>
>> In general, all innovations that I have proposed were laughed at or just
>> deningrated as "non standard"
>
> I just installed llc-win64, here is my first program:
> ___________________________________________
> #include <stdio.h>
>
>
> int main(int argc,char *argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!");
> printf("\nHit <ENTER> to exit...\n");
> fflush(stdout);
> getchar();
> return 0;
> }
> ___________________________________________
>
> works fine. I am going to try and build the following program next:
>
> http://pastebin.com/D7N4vBWa
>
> A crude older version of my Funny Fractal Encryption program.
>
> Thank you. BTW, IIRC, you have 128-bit floating point in here?
>
> Thanks again Jacob.
>
> :^D
Well, it compiled it VERY FAST, and runs without any input parameters,
and gives correct output:
__________________________________________________________
Funny Fractal Encryption ver:(0.0.0) pre-alpha
by: Chris M. Thomasson
==================================================
Program Usage:
___________________________________________
The command line for creating a default secret key file that can
be changed with a text editor has two arguments:
ffe 0 <secret_key_filename>
The encryption command line will encrypt a plaintext into a ciphertext
using a secret key, and has 4 arguments:
ffe 1 <secret_key_filename> <plaintext_filename> <ciphertext_filename>
The decryption command line will decrypt a ciphertext into a plaintext
using a secret key, and has 4 arguments:
ffe 2 <secret_key_filename> <plaintext_filename> <ciphertext_filename>
The command line for displaying this usage information has no arguments:
ffe
Enjoy!
___________________________________________
Program Failed!
__________________________________________________________
It only says Program Failed because I used zero input parameters. But,
this is exactly how it should work in that case!
So fast, so very good.
:^D
I will try to run the encrypt/decrypt cycle on a couple of movie files.
Thanks again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 15:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtncm$s7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96156 |
On 11/8/2016 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote: >>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit : >>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am crazy!? [...] > Program Usage: > ___________________________________________ > The command line for creating a default secret key file that can > be changed with a text editor has two arguments: > > ffe 0 <secret_key_filename> I cannot get it to create the default secret key in lcc-win64. It works in MSVC, GCC. Richard Heathfield and others got it to work over on sci.crypt. I can even get it to work in an online GCC compiler here: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php Any idea whats going on here Jacob? Can you try it out? Perhaps I should start another thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 15:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtooo$if$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96161 |
On 11/8/2016 3:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>>>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am
>>>>> crazy!?
> [...]
>> Program Usage:
>> ___________________________________________
>> The command line for creating a default secret key file that can
>> be changed with a text editor has two arguments:
>>
>> ffe 0 <secret_key_filename>
>
> I cannot get it to create the default secret key in lcc-win64. It works
> in MSVC, GCC. Richard Heathfield and others got it to work over on
> sci.crypt. I can even get it to work in an online GCC compiler here:
>
> https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php
>
> Any idea whats going on here Jacob? Can you try it out?
>
> Perhaps I should start another thread.
I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
______________________________________________________________
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
/*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
{
for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
{
printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
}
}
printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
______________________________________________________________
It prints
It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
other compilers I use do not mind. Your gives:
argc:1
argv=c:\testing_123\lcc\testing_123.exe
XXself->cmdargs.argc = 0
Well, my program does not like this because it wants cmdargs.argc to be
equal to 1.
Okay. I will alter my code, and see if I can get it to work in your
compiler. I bet I can do it!
Okay, time to get to work.
:^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtptp$491$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96164 |
On 11/8/2016 3:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 3:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/8/2016 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>>>>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am
>>>>>> crazy!?
>> [...]
>>> Program Usage:
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> The command line for creating a default secret key file that can
>>> be changed with a text editor has two arguments:
>>>
>>> ffe 0 <secret_key_filename>
>>
>> I cannot get it to create the default secret key in lcc-win64. It works
>> in MSVC, GCC. Richard Heathfield and others got it to work over on
>> sci.crypt. I can even get it to work in an online GCC compiler here:
>>
>> https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php
>>
>> Any idea whats going on here Jacob? Can you try it out?
>>
>> Perhaps I should start another thread.
>
> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
> ______________________________________________________________
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>
> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
> {
> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
> }
>
>
> }
>
> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> It prints
>
>
> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
> other compilers I use do not mind. Your gives:
[...]
HEY NOW!!!! I got it to create the default secret key. I changed the
dynamic bracket assignment to:
_________________________________________
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs;// = { argc, argv };
cmdargs.argc = argc;
cmdargs.argv = argv;
printf("cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
if (!ffe_cmdline_app_create(&self, &cmdargs))
{
if (!ffe_cmdline_app_run(&self))
{
if (!ffe_cmdline_app_destroy(&self))
{
puts("\r\n\r\nProgram Completed!");
getchar();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
}
else
{
ffe_cmdline_app_destroy(&self);
}
}
ffe_cmdline_display_help(stdout);
puts("\r\n\r\nProgram Failed!");
getchar();
return EXIT_FAILURE;
_________________________________________
AND IT WORKED!
output:
_________________________________________________________
cmdargs.argc = 3
Funny Fractal Encryption ver:(0.0.0) pre-alpha
by: Chris M. Thomasson
==================================================
out file: default_secret_key
default secret key created!
Secret Key:
____________________________________________
iters: 314
scale: (1.0000000000000, 0.0000000000000)
julia0: (0.3600000000000, 0.0000000000000)
julia1: (-0.7500000000000, 0.1000000000000)
julia2: (0.3500000000000, 0.1000000000000)
axes: (-0.7000000000000, 0.3000000000000
-0.2000000000000, 0.8000000000000)
____________________________________________
Program Completed!
_________________________________________________________
It created the secret key! I will not try to run the encrypt/decrypt
cycle on some movie files... avi's to be precise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtq0i$491$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96165 |
On 11/8/2016 4:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 3:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/8/2016 3:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2016 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>>>>>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am
>>>>>>> crazy!?
>>> [...]
>>>> Program Usage:
>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>> The command line for creating a default secret key file that can
>>>> be changed with a text editor has two arguments:
>>>>
>>>> ffe 0 <secret_key_filename>
>>>
>>> I cannot get it to create the default secret key in lcc-win64. It works
>>> in MSVC, GCC. Richard Heathfield and others got it to work over on
>>> sci.crypt. I can even get it to work in an online GCC compiler here:
>>>
>>> https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php
>>>
>>> Any idea whats going on here Jacob? Can you try it out?
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should start another thread.
>>
>> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> int
>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
>> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
>> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>>
>> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>>
>> {
>> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
>> {
>> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
>> }
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> It prints
>>
>>
>> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
>> other compilers I use do not mind. Your gives:
> [...]
>
> HEY NOW!!!! I got it to create the default secret key. I changed the
> dynamic bracket assignment to:
> _________________________________________
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs;// = { argc, argv };
>
> cmdargs.argc = argc;
> cmdargs.argv = argv;
>
> printf("cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
>
> if (!ffe_cmdline_app_create(&self, &cmdargs))
> {
> if (!ffe_cmdline_app_run(&self))
> {
> if (!ffe_cmdline_app_destroy(&self))
> {
> puts("\r\n\r\nProgram Completed!");
> getchar();
>
> return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> }
> }
>
> else
> {
> ffe_cmdline_app_destroy(&self);
> }
> }
>
> ffe_cmdline_display_help(stdout);
>
> puts("\r\n\r\nProgram Failed!");
> getchar();
>
> return EXIT_FAILURE;
> _________________________________________
>
>
> AND IT WORKED!
>
> output:
> _________________________________________________________
> cmdargs.argc = 3
> Funny Fractal Encryption ver:(0.0.0) pre-alpha
> by: Chris M. Thomasson
> ==================================================
>
> out file: default_secret_key
> default secret key created!
>
> Secret Key:
> ____________________________________________
> iters: 314
> scale: (1.0000000000000, 0.0000000000000)
> julia0: (0.3600000000000, 0.0000000000000)
> julia1: (-0.7500000000000, 0.1000000000000)
> julia2: (0.3500000000000, 0.1000000000000)
> axes: (-0.7000000000000, 0.3000000000000
> -0.2000000000000, 0.8000000000000)
> ____________________________________________
>
>
>
> Program Completed!
> _________________________________________________________
>
>
> It created the secret key! I will not try to run the encrypt/decrypt
> cycle on some movie files... avi's to be precise.
Ummm... I meant:
It created the secret key! I will _NOW_ try to run the encrypt/decrypt
cycle on some movie files... avi's to be precise.
This is fun. A new compiler to play with!
Thanks again Jacob.
:^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <nvtqb6$5ck$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96165 |
On 11/8/2016 4:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 3:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 11/8/2016 3:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2016 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 11/8/2016 2:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 11/8/2016 2:26 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
>>>>>> Le 08/11/2016 à 23:15, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>>>>>>> Holy shi%! So, when I write C, the C committee might think I am
>>>>>>> crazy!?
>>> [...]
>>>> Program Usage:
>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>> The command line for creating a default secret key file that can
>>>> be changed with a text editor has two arguments:
>>>>
>>>> ffe 0 <secret_key_filename>
>>>
>>> I cannot get it to create the default secret key in lcc-win64. It works
>>> in MSVC, GCC. Richard Heathfield and others got it to work over on
>>> sci.crypt. I can even get it to work in an online GCC compiler here:
>>>
>>> https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php
>>>
>>> Any idea whats going on here Jacob? Can you try it out?
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should start another thread.
>>
>> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> int
>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
>> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
>> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
[...]
I found several other places in my program that uses dynamic bracket
initialization based on function parameters. I will fix them all, and I
will bet your compiler will run the encrypt/decrypt cycle.
BTW, I am sorry for all of the posts, but I am excited right now.
Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 19:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <edb11f1f-e35c-ee39-a398-85b586d5ca6a@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #96164 |
On 11/08/2016 06:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
...
> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
> ______________________________________________________________
> int
> main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>
> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
> {
> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
> }
>
>
> }
>
> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> It prints
>
>
> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
How did it indicate it's dislike of that construct? Was a diagnostic
message printed? If so, the text of that message would be helpful.
"All the expressions in an initializer for an object that has static or
thread storage duration shall be constant expressions or string
literals." (6.7.9p4)
One of the differences between C90 and C99 was that in C90 this
constraint also applied to objects with automatic storage duration.
Is the compiler you're using operating in C90 mode, C99, or C2011, or is
it in it's default mode? Most compilers don't fully conform to ANY
version of the standard in their default mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o00ccg$rq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96169 |
On 11/8/2016 4:59 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 06:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> ...
>> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> int
>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
>> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
>> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>>
>> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>>
>> {
>> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
>> {
>> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
>> }
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
>> ______________________________________________________________
>>
>> It prints
>>
>>
>> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
>
> How did it indicate it's dislike of that construct? Was a diagnostic
> message printed? If so, the text of that message would be helpful.
No diagnostic message, however it assigned the value of 0 to the argc
component of the struct ffe_cmdline_args defined as:
__________________________________________
struct ffe_cmdline_args
{
int argc;
char **argv;
};
__________________________________________
No matter how many command line args I pass to it, its still zero. This
is not good because my program checks this value in the
ffe_cmdline_app_create function:
__________________________________________
int
ffe_cmdline_app_create(
struct ffe_cmdline_app* const self,
struct ffe_cmdline_args const* cmdargs
) {
printf(
"Funny Fractal Encryption ver:(0.0.0) pre-alpha\r\n"
"by: Chris M. Thomasson\r\n"
"==================================================\r\n\r\n");
self->cmdargs = *cmdargs;
self->in_file = self->out_file = NULL;
srand((unsigned int)time(NULL));
if (self->cmdargs.argc < 2)
{
return FFE_ERROR;
}
[...]
___________________________________________
The code can be found here:
http://pastebin.com/D7N4vBWa
It compiles and works fine for me and others on GCC using the following
command line to compile it:
gcc -o main *.c -lm
This can be compiled and run online here:
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/compile_c_online.php
The GCC version on that site is: gcc version 5.3.1 20151207 (Red Hat
5.3.1-2) (GCC)
It also works fine with MSVC. However, with Jacob's compiler, it does
does not work with the dynamic bracket assignment.
___________________________________________
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
[...]
___________________________________________
After this, cmdargs.argc == 0. Not good for my program. However, if I
change the code to:
___________________________________________
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs;// = { argc, argv };
cmdargs.argc = argc;
cmdargs.argv = argv;
___________________________________________
and it does assign the correct values. Note the comment style of //...
This works, which makes me think its in c99 mode.
> "All the expressions in an initializer for an object that has static or
> thread storage duration shall be constant expressions or string
> literals." (6.7.9p4)
>
> One of the differences between C90 and C99 was that in C90 this
> constraint also applied to objects with automatic storage duration.
>
> Is the compiler you're using operating in C90 mode, C99, or C2011, or is
> it in it's default mode? Most compilers don't fully conform to ANY
> version of the standard in their default mode.
I do not know, for this is my first experience with Jacob's compiler. I
think its C99. Not sure though. I need to study it, and learn how to use
it correctly. However, I think I can get it to work.
BTW, can you compile it and run it. It has usage information built into
the program.
Thanks James.
:^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-10 00:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o00cpc$si0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96248 |
Le 10/11/2016 à 00:44, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
> On 11/8/2016 4:59 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>> On 11/08/2016 06:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> ...
>>> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> int
>>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> {
>>> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
>>> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
>>> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>>>
>>> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>>>
>>> {
>>> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
>>> {
>>> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> It prints
>>>
>>>
>>> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
>>
Yes, this is an evil bug sorry.
But I am doing a arm64 version right now and do not have time to fix
that immediately.
Sorry about this.
>> How did it indicate it's dislike of that construct? Was a diagnostic
>> message printed? If so, the text of that message would be helpful.
A bug doesn't emit diagnostics, well, at least not normally...
:-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 15:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o00d8s$u1f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #96249 |
On 11/9/2016 3:51 PM, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 10/11/2016 à 00:44, Chris M. Thomasson a écrit :
>> On 11/8/2016 4:59 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2016 06:57 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I found why your compiler does not work with my code! Its right here:
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> int
>>>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>> {
>>>> struct ffe_cmdline_app self;
>>>> struct ffe_cmdline_args cmdargs = { argc, argv };
>>>> /*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*/
>>>>
>>>> printf("argc:%d\n", argc);
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>> for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
>>>> {
>>>> printf("argv=%s\n", argv[i]);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> printf("XXself->cmdargs.argc = %d\n", cmdargs.argc);
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> It prints
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does NOT like that I am assigning argc, and argv in brackets! The
>>>
>
> Yes, this is an evil bug sorry.
No problem Jacob. I thought I was going a little crazy for a moment.
BTW, thank you for creating this fast compiler. I really like it.
>
> But I am doing a arm64 version right now and do not have time to fix
> that immediately.
>
> Sorry about this.
>
>>> How did it indicate it's dislike of that construct? Was a diagnostic
>>> message printed? If so, the text of that message would be helpful.
>
> A bug doesn't emit diagnostics, well, at least not normally...
>
> :-)
;^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web