Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 192 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200
[OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-23 08:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:41 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:42 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 18:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:21 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-03 16:55 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:05 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:56 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:10 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 07:51 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 17:43 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-23 20:17 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 15:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 17:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 19:02 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 20:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:33 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 08:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:08 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:37 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:13 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-23 10:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-23 13:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 09:06 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:45 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:01 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:11 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 11:46 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 12:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 09:35 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:28 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 14:23 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:02 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-25 17:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 18:49 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:23 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 09:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 13:35 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 02:10 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:59 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:21 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:01 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-27 23:16 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 17:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 03:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:07 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:40 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 00:59 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> - 2012-09-03 00:31 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 09:13 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 15:38 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 18:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 17:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2012-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87a9x31iqy.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #24945 |
Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
> On 25.08.2012 21:27, James Kuyper wrote:
> > On 08/25/2012 03:21 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> >> On 25.08.2012 20:50, Les Cargill wrote:
> >>
> >>> This seems to work. I commented out the string
> >>> ".vec1 = 1234", which isn't strictly necessary anyway
> >>> ( but is a nice thing to have available ).
> >>
> >> Yes, when you comment out the whole point of the example, it works.
> >
> > But the part that was commented out was pointless; if it was the point
> > of the example, the example had no point. Yes, I'm playing with words -
> > but it's also all literally true.
>
> Alright, then, since you do understand what I'm getting at but are
> unwilling to recoginze the point, here's a more complete example.
> Imagine there are 3 hardware platforms (these are about 10-20 in
> reality) each which have 10 IRQ vectors (these at least 100 in reality):
>
> hw1.h:
> struct ivtlayout {
> int vec1;
> int vec2;
> int vec3;
> int vec6;
> int vec4;
> int vec7;
> int vec9;
> int vec5;
> int vec8;
> int vec0;
> };
#define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
> hw2.h:
> struct ivtlayout {
> int vec4;
> int vec2;
> int vec5;
> int vec8;
> int vec1;
> int vec3;
> int vec9;
> int vec0;
> int vec6;
> int vec7;
> };
+ similar define
> hw3.h:
> struct ivtlayout {
> int vec7;
> int vec6;
> int vec9;
> int vec8;
> int vec4;
> int vec1;
> int vec3;
> int vec0;
> int vec5;
> int vec2;
> };
+ similar define
And note that to prevent redundant definition of the order, the structure
definition and the initialiser could be created from a generalisation of
the above.
> Now you want to include for each version a IVT which specifies a value
> for vector 8. C solution:
>
> struct ivtlayout ivt = {
> .vec8 = 1234,
> };
struct ivtlayout ivt = {
INIT_IVT(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0)
};
>
> I'll leave the C++ solution as an excersise to you. Hopefully you'll see
> the point now.
That took me 20 seconds. How many hours should I bill you for if you think
it was hard work?
And if you think that using the preprocessor isn't C++, then what about the
following?
class ivtlayout {
int vec7;
int vec6;
//...
public:
ivt(int v0, int v1, int v2, /*...*/, int v8, int v9)
: vec7(v7), vec6(v6), /*...*/, vec8(v8), vec9(v9) {;}
};
ivtlayout ivt(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0);
E&OE, I've not programmed C++ to any significant extent for about a decade.
OK, the above took about 30s of thought, but over a minute of typing -
how many more hours can I bill you for?
Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k2d536$1h2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #25996 |
On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
> #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard.
> struct ivtlayout ivt = {
> INIT_IVT(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0)
> };
>
>>
>> I'll leave the C++ solution as an excersise to you. Hopefully you'll see
>> the point now.
>
> That took me 20 seconds. How many hours should I bill you for if you think
> it was hard work?
You should apply for a software patent for your ingenious solution. It's
probably worth millions. Marvellous!
> And if you think that using the preprocessor isn't C++, then what about the
> following?
>
> class ivtlayout {
> int vec7;
> int vec6;
> //...
>
> public:
> ivt(int v0, int v1, int v2, /*...*/, int v8, int v9)
> : vec7(v7), vec6(v6), /*...*/, vec8(v8), vec9(v9) {;}
> };
>
> ivtlayout ivt(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0);
That doesn't fulfill the requirements. Please look at the generated code.
> E&OE, I've not programmed C++ to any significant extent for about a decade.
And it shows.
Regards,
Johannes
--
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87627pzu8x.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #26059 |
Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
> On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> > #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
>
> Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard.
>
> > struct ivtlayout ivt = {
> > INIT_IVT(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0)
> > };
> >
> >>
> >> I'll leave the C++ solution as an excersise to you. Hopefully you'll see
> >> the point now.
> >
> > That took me 20 seconds. How many hours should I bill you for if you think
> > it was hard work?
>
> You should apply for a software patent for your ingenious solution. It's
> probably worth millions. Marvellous!
If you're attempting to be patronising, I feel obliged to point out
that it was you who was unable to come up with something and getting
in a flap about how it was impossible in C++. I'm sorry if proving
you wrong hurts your pride.
Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k2da77$dp3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #26060 |
On 07.09.2012 18:13, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
>> On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>
>>> #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
>>
>> Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard.
>>
>>> struct ivtlayout ivt = {
>>> INIT_IVT(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0)
>>> };
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave the C++ solution as an excersise to you. Hopefully you'll see
>>>> the point now.
>>>
>>> That took me 20 seconds. How many hours should I bill you for if you think
>>> it was hard work?
>>
>> You should apply for a software patent for your ingenious solution. It's
>> probably worth millions. Marvellous!
>
> If you're attempting to be patronising, I feel obliged to point out
> that it was you who was unable to come up with something and getting
> in a flap about how it was impossible in C++. I'm sorry if proving
> you wrong hurts your pride.
It is not possible in C++ to initialize structure members by their
names, which is the only nice solution that I know of. This doesn't hurt
my pride, it's a basic fact that you can read up in the C++ standard if
you find the time.
Your "solution" is having the exact same problem that a manually
initialized structure has: In a list of ~100 numbers, you need to set
exactly the correct one (i.e. count by hand).
Also, every definition file must include the union of all possible
vectors. You're making the problem much worse, not better. So if you're
really proposing this as a viable alternative you really have no idea at
all about how to write code that can be maintained well.
Regards,
Johannes
--
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mx0zy5qn.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #26066 |
Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
> On 07.09.2012 18:13, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
> >> On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
> >>
> >>> #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
> >>
> >> Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard.
> >>
> >>> struct ivtlayout ivt = {
> >>> INIT_IVT(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1234,0)
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll leave the C++ solution as an excersise to you. Hopefully you'll see
> >>>> the point now.
> >>>
> >>> That took me 20 seconds. How many hours should I bill you for if you think
> >>> it was hard work?
> >>
> >> You should apply for a software patent for your ingenious solution. It's
> >> probably worth millions. Marvellous!
> >
> > If you're attempting to be patronising, I feel obliged to point out
> > that it was you who was unable to come up with something and getting
> > in a flap about how it was impossible in C++. I'm sorry if proving
> > you wrong hurts your pride.
>
> It is not possible in C++ to initialize structure members by their
> names, which is the only nice solution that I know of. This doesn't hurt
> my pride, it's a basic fact that you can read up in the C++ standard if
> you find the time.
>
> Your "solution" is having the exact same problem that a manually
> initialized structure has: In a list of ~100 numbers, you need to set
> exactly the correct one (i.e. count by hand).
Ah, sorry, yes, I was presuming the ability to count. If that doesn't apply,
you'll have a spot of bother in C++.
Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <871uidzt4s.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #26059 |
Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
> On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
>
> > #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0
>
> Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard.
Only relatively. You've not set the standard particularly high.
#if defined(REVERSE)
/* this goes in one header file */
template <int v0, int v1, int v2, int v3> struct IVT
{
IVT() { ; }
static const int ivt[4];
};
template <int v0, int v1, int v2, int v3> const int IVT<v0,v1,v2,v3>::ivt[4] = { v3, v2, v1, v0, };
#else
/* this goes in a different header file */
template <int v0, int v1, int v2, int v3> struct IVT
{
IVT() { ; }
static const int ivt[4];
};
template <int v0, int v1, int v2, int v3> const int IVT<v0,v1,v2,v3>::ivt[4] = { v0, v1, v2, v3, };
#endif
/* back in your C file */
static const IVT<0,0,1234,0> ivt=0; /* IRQ2 initialised, no matter where it is in the array */
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::cout << ivt.ivt[0] << ' ' << ivt.ivt[1] << ' ' << ivt.ivt[2] << ' ' << ivt.ivt[3] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
phil@geespaz:tmp$ g++ crap.c -o crap
phil@geespaz:tmp$ ./crap
0 0 1234 0
phil@geespaz:tmp$ g++ -DREVERSE crap.c -o crap
phil@geespaz:tmp$ ./crap
0 1234 0 0
Objdump confirms there's some .rodata with the appropriate values in the appropriate order.
Phil
--
Regarding TSA regulations:
How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k2dagu$ei6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #26062 |
On 07.09.2012 18:37, Phil Carmody wrote: > Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes: > >> On 06.09.2012 13:41, Phil Carmody wrote: >> >>> #define INIT_IVT(v0,v1,v2,v3,v4,v5,v6,v7,v8,v9) v1,v2,v3,v6,v4,v7,v9,v5,v8,v0 >> >> Boy we're in for a treat. You're a C++ wizard. > > Only relatively. You've not set the standard particularly high. You might want to look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. > /* back in your C file */ > static const IVT<0,0,1234,0> ivt=0; /* IRQ2 initialised, no matter where it is in the array */ What if the selected architecture doesn't include the filled out vector entry? Designated initializers: Compiler error. Your solution: Silent discard. What if a new architecture has a new vector entry that the others didn't have? Designated initializers: Add it to the new definition structure. You solution: Change all definition files to accomodate for it. > phil@geespaz:tmp$ ./crap At least you named it correctly. Regards, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvcg6g4x6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24917 |
Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> writes:
[...]
> struct ivtlayout {
> int vec1;
> int vec2;
> int vec3;
> };
>
> struct ivtlayout ivt = {
> .vec1 = 1234,
> };
>
> int main() {
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> [~/tmp]: gcc -O2 -Wall -Wextra -std=c99 -pedantic x.c
> [~/tmp]: g++ -O2 -Wall -Wextra -std=c++0x -pedantic x.c
> x.c:8:2: Error: expected primary-expression before ».« token
At least newer versions of g++ (I have 4.7.0) give better error
messages:
c.cpp:7:24: warning: ISO C++ does not allow C99 designated initializers [-pedantic]
c.cpp:9:1: warning: missing initializer for member ‘ivtlayout::vec2’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
c.cpp:9:1: warning: missing initializer for member ‘ivtlayout::vec3’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers]
And "-std=c++11" is now an alias for "-std=c++0x" (or vice versa).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk3imvv.ph6.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #24900 |
On Sat, 2012-08-25, Malcolm McLean wrote: > Jorgen Grahn: >> On Wed, 2012-08-22, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> If that is true, it should worry C programmers. >> >> C++ really /is/ the "better C" in the sense that like C it >> >> >> There are no other important languages in that area. >> > C++ is a superset of C (pedants, attack !!!). So if you write C rather than > C++ you've necessarily rejected C++. The only exception is when you're > developing for tiny embedded systems that don't come with a C++ compiler. > > Why would you do that? Basically to make code more reusable, and to reduce > dependencies between source files. If my binary image library was in C++, > fr example, then a "binary image" would be an "object". C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82c6e591-95a2-4e5f-8f0f-6df4839b2cbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #24960 |
בתאריך יום ראשון, 26 באוגוסט 2012 00:13:04 UTC+1, מאת Jorgen Grahn: > On Sat, 2012-08-25, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > If my binary image library was in C++, for example, then a "binary image" > > would be an "object". > > C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes. > No, but people expect a C++ binary image library to work on binary image objects. They expect something like a virtual base class they can then over-ride to use packed bits. If this isn't provided there's no real point in the library being in C++
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk3k1ac.ph6.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #24996 |
On Sun, 2012-08-26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > ???????????? ?????? ??????????, 26 ?????????????? 2012 00:13:04 UTC+1, ?????? Jorgen Grahn: >> On Sat, 2012-08-25, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> > If my binary image library was in C++, for example, then a "binary image" >> > would be an "object". >> >> C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes. >> > No, but people expect a C++ binary image library to work on binary image > objects. They expect something like a virtual base class they can then over-ride > to use packed bits. I don't think they do. For one thing, many are reluctant to use run-time polymorphism for tiny things like pixels, because of the (at least percieved) performance penalty of millions of virtual calls versus inlined straight function calls. (Not that I advocate writing general-purpose libraries with C++-only interfaces. A C interface makes much more sense for various reasons.) > If this isn't provided there's no real point in the library being in C++ That does not make sense. Run-time polymorphism is just /one/ language feature, and not the most important one. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1dj41$22p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24960 |
Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> Why would you do that? Basically to make code more reusable, and to >> reduce dependencies between source files. If my binary image library was >> in C++, fr example, then a "binary image" would be an "object". > > C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes. A class isn't the same thing as an object, and with C++, even if you don't employ a single class anywhere in your code, you are still forced to deal with objects extensively. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk3ksfp.ph6.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #25024 |
On Sun, 2012-08-26, Rui Maciel wrote: > Jorgen Grahn wrote: > >>> Why would you do that? Basically to make code more reusable, and to >>> reduce dependencies between source files. If my binary image library was >>> in C++, fr example, then a "binary image" would be an "object". >> >> C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes. > > A class isn't the same thing as an object, He meant a class though: he went on to talk about abstract base classes and so on. > and with C++, even if you don't > employ a single class anywhere in your code, you are still forced to deal > with objects extensively. Not sure what you mean, although it sounds scary. But I'm not strictly forced to do anything I don't already do in C. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna9xhe507.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25024 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>> Why would you do that? Basically to make code more reusable, and to
>>> reduce dependencies between source files. If my binary image library was
>>> in C++, fr example, then a "binary image" would be an "object".
>>
>> C++ isn't Java; nothing forces you to design everything as classes.
>
> A class isn't the same thing as an object, and with C++, even if you don't
> employ a single class anywhere in your code, you are still forced to deal
> with objects extensively.
There is an unfortunate ambiguity in the word "object". The C++
standard's definition of the word, "An *object* is a region of
storage" ([intro.object], 1.8) is quite similar to the C standard's
definition, a "region of data storage in the execution environment,
the contents of which can represent values" (3.15).
But the word is commonly used in the context of "object-oriented
programming", OOP, to prefer to a more specific concept (which I
won't try to define here). It seems clear enough that Malcolm was
using the latter meaning.
Or did you mean something else?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RicZr.7335$M_7.5679@fx06.am4> |
| In reply to | #24707 |
On 22/08/2012 18:34, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: > Hello! Wise people! > > > Just read the shock news[1][2] that GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C will be discarded ( deprecated ? : ) > > But still not very clear on it. > > . does it mean C++ is better than C? C and C++ both have their place (and I indeed use each depending on the problem needing to be solved) The hidden question is "How much does the GCC source code look like C", to which the answer is "not really". The internal code has vast quantities of macros which appear to implement OO design; so much so that the equivalent C++ code in places is substantially cleaner and neater. So the movement is more from "Basically C++ but implemented with the preprocessor" to C++, which is rather less of a leap. > > . the re-implemention involves which one(s): C compiler, C++ compiler, and Java, Fortran ..? > > . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his related linux project do? Continue to be the same because, while he is particularly vocal in his opinion, he is correct when it comes to a kernel. C++ is substantially easier than C for making sensible looking which cripples performance. Two examples would be virtual functions inside a tight loop (causing slower execution), or a liberal sprinkling of templates (causing a swelling of code size). This is not saying that it cant be done, but that it is making an already hard problem far harder. ~Andrew > > > -vvvv- > > This page is meant to eventually help document the ongoing effort in the "gcc-in-cxx" branch to make gcc compile in C++ mode, i.e. as C++ source code. > > So, the goal of this branch is to facilitate switching GCC's implementation language to C++. > > -^^^^- > > [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx > [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnobm2h8sv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #24724 |
Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> On 22/08/2012 18:34, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
[...]
>> . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his
>> related linux project do?
>
> Continue to be the same because, while he is particularly vocal in his
> opinion, he is correct when it comes to a kernel.
I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux
kernel.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k13mb4$qih$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #24728 |
In article <lnobm2h8sv.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> writes: >> On 22/08/2012 18:34, lovecreatesbeauty wrote: >[...] >>> . what will the man who said "C++ is horrible language" and his >>> related linux project do? >> >> Continue to be the same because, while he is particularly vocal in his >> opinion, he is correct when it comes to a kernel. > >I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux >kernel. I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got pissed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the compiler. -- Alan Curry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2012.08.23.01.07.36.138000@nowhere.com> |
| In reply to | #24729 |
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote: >>I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux >>kernel. > > I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got > pissed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a > replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the > compiler. His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes, gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable when written in C++ than in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k145b6$o5p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24733 |
On 08/22/2012 09:07 PM, Nobody wrote: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote: > >>> I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux >>> kernel. >> >> I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got >> pissed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a >> replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the >> compiler. > > His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the > tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it > wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes, > gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable > when written in C++ than in C. His biggest complaints about C++ were about the maintainability of the code. If his complaints are valid, the implementation using C++ will be much buggier than the current one using C, in which case both gcc and g++ will be less suitable when implemented using C++ than when implemented using C. It's correspondingly important to know whether or not his complaints are valid. I don't have sufficiently wide experience to judge the issue. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k14g8e$2br$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24737 |
James Kuyper wrote: > On 08/22/2012 09:07 PM, Nobody wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:26:45 +0000, Alan Curry wrote: >> >>>> I believe this refers to Linus Torvalds, primary author of the Linux >>>> kernel. >>> >>> I hope he's completely dissatisfied and enraged. The last time he got >>> pissed off at one of his development tools, he took a few weeks to build a >>> replacement and now we have git. Imagine the same thing happening to the >>> compiler. >> >> His dissatisfaction with C++ relates to the language itself, not the >> tools. As the changes shouldn't affect gcc's external behaviour, it >> wouldn't matter if it was being re-written in Cobol. For Linus' purposes, >> gcc (the C compiler) will be no less suitable and g++ no more suitable >> when written in C++ than in C. > > His biggest complaints about C++ were about the maintainability of the > code. If his complaints are valid, the implementation using C++ will be > much buggier than the current one using C, in which case both gcc and > g++ will be less suitable when implemented using C++ than when > implemented using C. It's correspondingly important to know whether or > not his complaints are valid. I don't have sufficiently wide experience > to judge the issue. > There are classes of bugs that C++ can eliminate entirely. And there are classes of bugs in C++ that are much less fun to debug. This being said, so long as the bugs are reproducible, it's just money and time. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web