Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #10412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:57 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 07:53 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 08:23 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 16:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 10:10 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 05:07 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 14:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-19 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 17:21 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:27 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 18:31 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-21 01:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:03 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 02:33 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 10:08 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid websnarf <websnarf@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:51 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:11 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-19 22:21 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-09-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:09 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 20:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 22:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 22:43 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 19:03 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 14:11 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 21:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 06:17 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-28 07:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 07:26 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:26 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-30 01:27 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-30 08:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:21 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-09-18 23:10 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 03:34 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-18 22:32 -0600
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 18:15 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:02 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 20:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 16:11 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:28 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:07 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 11:28 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 15:45 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 14:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 21:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 14:40 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:44 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 18:44 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 07:04 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:30 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:39 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 14:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 19:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-21 05:25 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 12:16 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 23:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 21:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-24 14:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:43 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:26 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:53 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 02:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 22:24 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:36 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:30 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-22 18:23 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 06:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-19 19:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:02 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 06:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 20:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-28 09:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-18 23:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:45 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 19:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2011-09-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 01:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-17 17:15 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Максим Фомин <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> - 2011-09-18 00:43 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-18 10:34 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-20 09:28 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 10:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <878vpdzxbu.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10824 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 09/23/2011 05:50 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> > On 09/24/11 09:22 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
> >> Such linkage does not render your code non-conforming, it doesn't even
> >> interfere with strict conformance. However, if you don't merely link to
> >> the collector, but actually use it, that would interfere with strict
> >> conformance. That's because the interface to the collector is not part
> >> of any conforming implementation of the C standard library, and the
> >> collector itself cannot be written in strictly conforming C. However,
> >> very few programs are strictly conforming; possibly none that do
> >> anything really useful.
> >
> > Untrue, the main advantage of using a library is the library simply
> > interposes malloc and friends.
>
> Automatic garbage collection of malloc() allocations cannot be done by a
> fully conforming implementation of C. See the requirements for
> scanf("%p"), and consider the implications of having the only copy of a
> pointer's value stored completely outside of any memory that the garbage
> collector is capable of scanning. Of course, you don't need scanf("%p")
> to achieve that; fwrite()/fread() is sufficient, unless the garbage
> collector also scans files.
An implementation with virtual memory and logical/physical addresses
can also confuse GC. Paragraphs/pages likewise. For example
scatter-gather DMA lists can confuse the kmemleak checker in linux, as
you convert addresses to page numbers and store those, losing the
pointer values. Some drivers will also keep copies of the kmalloc'ed
pointers, but they're not obliged to, as you can retrieve them from
the page numbers
Phil
--
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E7CF599.1040105@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #10803 |
On 09/23/2011 04:49 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sep 23, 9:02 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: >> >> You allocate stuff with gc_malloc() and never free it. That is all >> there is. I do not see why that is no longer 'C'. Because gc_malloc() isn't a C standard library function. You could still be working in a C environment, but gc_malloc() is not itself part of C. However, the assertion was: On 2011-09-20, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > Le 20/09/11 19:02, Willem a ?crit : ... >> Or the language can simply make sure that the pointed-to object keeps >> existing untill all pointers to it are gone. Which a lot of languages >> do, actually. ... > Well, C too does that. Since the object in question was automatic, this would involve a radically bigger change to the language than simple adding the ability to call gc_malloc().
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5iuh5$g7h$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10808 |
Le 23/09/11 23:09, James Kuyper a écrit : > > Since the object in question was automatic, this would involve a > radically bigger change to the language than simple adding the ability > to call gc_malloc(). Yes, and I clarified in the next message (that you choose to ignore) that that is UB and lcc-win doesn't support it. Gc applies only to objects allocated with gc_malloc() not to automatic objects. But anything is OK so long as you can throw something to lcc-win
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-191924.20484627092011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #10745 |
In article <87obyb1uat.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > > On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: > > > >> We're talking about a pointer to an automatic variable. > > >> Does the lcc-win garbage collector handle those? > > >> Or does it only handle pointers to allocated memory? > > > > If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that > > > a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has > > > never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. > > > > As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? > > Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word > for a reason? However, I should be flattered that you interpreted > what I wrote as it was intended, which is so rare nowadays, even > if you didn't work out my motivation for such wording. > > However, one cannot have an argument *without* some assertions. > Call them axioms, call them postlates, call them whatever, but > they are not argued, they are asserted. Is it time to recognize that you did not assert consequences of dereferencability of a pointer to its validity? -- Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ipo6t3i3.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #11037 |
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > In article <87obyb1uat.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > > > On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: > > > > > >> We're talking about a pointer to an automatic variable. > > > >> Does the lcc-win garbage collector handle those? > > > >> Or does it only handle pointers to allocated memory? > > > > > > If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that > > > > a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has > > > > never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. > > > > > > As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? > > > > Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word > > for a reason? However, I should be flattered that you interpreted > > what I wrote as it was intended, which is so rare nowadays, even > > if you didn't work out my motivation for such wording. > > > > However, one cannot have an argument *without* some assertions. > > Call them axioms, call them postlates, call them whatever, but > > they are not argued, they are asserted. > > Is it time to recognize that you did not assert > consequences of dereferencability of a pointer > to its validity? Is it time for you to post English that parses? Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rubrum-63509F.17324803102011@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #11209 |
In article <87ipo6t3i3.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > > In article <87obyb1uat.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org>, > > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > > > > On 09/22/2011 03:07 PM, Phil Carmody wrote: > > > > > Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes: > > > > > > > >> We're talking about a pointer to an automatic variable. > > > > >> Does the lcc-win garbage collector handle those? > > > > >> Or does it only handle pointers to allocated memory? > > > > > > > > If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that > > > > > a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has > > > > > never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. > > > > > > > > As assertion is not as good as an argument. Do you have one? > > > > > > Stop trying to be clever; do you not think I chose that word > > > for a reason? However, I should be flattered that you interpreted > > > what I wrote as it was intended, which is so rare nowadays, even > > > if you didn't work out my motivation for such wording. > > > > > > However, one cannot have an argument *without* some assertions. > > > Call them axioms, call them postlates, call them whatever, but > > > they are not argued, they are asserted. > > > > Is it time to recognize that you did not assert > > consequences of dereferencability of a pointer > > to its validity? > > Is it time for you to post English that parses? Betcha one Galactic Federation dollar that it parses. -- Michael Press
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e7dd2ac$0$16759$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10720 |
Phil Carmody wrote: > And are such pointers "valid" anyway? > If the local variable's out of scope, I would assert that > a pointer to it was no longer valid. Dereferencability has > never been a sufficient condition for being valid, IMHO. There is a corner case where this pointer could still be considered valid, but this would need the compiler developers to have implemented some form of garbage collection (which is possible and, I believe, the main reason to leave this behaviour undefined) and the programmers should be well aware that they would be taking advantage of a non-portable feature. Other than this, such a pointer couldn't possibly be considered valid, and a compiler could (or should) throw a warning due to this. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e78f50e$0$24712$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10584 |
Willem wrote: > Or the language can simply make sure that the pointed-to object keeps > existing untill all pointers to it are gone. Which a lot of languages > do, actually. ...or the programmer should be aware that objects do have a life time, and it doesn't make sense to write code which refers to objects whose life time has passed. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7hu8v.2m6.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
| In reply to | #10596 |
Rui Maciel wrote:
) Willem wrote:
)
)> Or the language can simply make sure that the pointed-to object keeps
)> existing untill all pointers to it are gone. Which a lot of languages
)> do, actually.
)
) ...or the programmer should be aware that objects do have a life time, and
) it doesn't make sense to write code which refers to objects whose life time
) has passed.
So, either the language takes care of things, or the programmer
should be aware that the language does not take care of things.
Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first.
Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are
a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language
that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm).
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5au1k$tje$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #10599 |
Le 20/09/11 22:35, Willem a écrit : > > Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first. > > Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are > a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language > that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm). > > > SaSW, Willem What bothers me of those would be managers I have come across (you are of course not the first one) is their comptempt for the lower castes, the lowly "programmers" that (of course) are bunch of lazy know nothings. There is a reason for that of course: Since they are so bad, those programmers, a programmer MANAGER is needed, that will keep those lazy bunch of hacks that write crap code under its supervision and all will be MUCH better, specially with a language CONCEIVED for those know-nothing hacking ignorants: JAVA. I like C. Its motto is: "Trust the programmer".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7j6t8.2mg0.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
| In reply to | #10601 |
jacob navia wrote:
) Le 20/09/11 22:35, Willem a ?crit :
)>
)> Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first.
)>
)> Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are
)> a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language
)> that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm).
)>
)>
)> SaSW, Willem
)
) What bothers me of those would be managers I have come across (you are
Try again. I'm a maintenance programmer. In other words: I fix the mess
that those hacks leave behind. In the caste system, which you seem so
proud of, I would be ranked lower than them, because I get to clean up
their mess.
So your whole rant falls flat on its face.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5f4n6$o11$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10631 |
Willem wrote: > Try again. I'm a maintenance programmer. In other words: I fix the mess > that those hacks leave behind. In the caste system, which you seem so > proud of, I would be ranked lower than them, because I get to clean up > their mess. > > So your whole rant falls flat on its face. FYI, Navia is 30% troll, 20% spammer (peddling his warez). IMO, he belongs in the bit bucket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0tom77hp72mjr0eour1ou50ai3nfonp7ho@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #10696 |
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:04:07 +0200, Noob <root@127.0.0.1> wrote: >Willem wrote: > >> Try again. I'm a maintenance programmer. In other words: I fix the mess >> that those hacks leave behind. In the caste system, which you seem so >> proud of, I would be ranked lower than them, because I get to clean up >> their mess. >> >> So your whole rant falls flat on its face. > >FYI, Navia is 30% troll, 20% spammer (peddling his warez). > >IMO, he belongs in the bit bucket. If Jacob's SNR is 50%, he's still doing better than most here. And unless you're accusing him of something illegal, "warez" seems a rather inappropriate term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5hgob$9bs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10713 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > Noob wrote: > >> FYI, Navia is 30% troll, 20% spammer (peddling his warez). >> >> IMO, he belongs in the bit bucket. > > If Jacob's SNR is 50%, he's still doing better than most here. Somewhat better than the worst is not very impressive an achievement... o_O > And unless you're accusing him of something illegal, > "warez" seems a rather inappropriate term. OK. 20% spammer (peddling his wares).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87ipok2xka.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10631 |
Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes:
> jacob navia wrote:
> ) Le 20/09/11 22:35, Willem a ?crit :
> )>
> )> Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first.
> )>
> )> Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are
> )> a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language
> )> that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm).
> )>
> )>
> )> SaSW, Willem
> )
> ) What bothers me of those would be managers I have come across (you are
>
> Try again. I'm a maintenance programmer. In other words: I fix the mess
> that those hacks leave behind. In the caste system, which you seem so
> proud of, I would be ranked lower than them, because I get to clean up
> their mess.
>
> So your whole rant falls flat on its face.
Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
productivity, as measured by lines of code?
I'll never forget the day I stripped out a whole bunch of code
like this, I was laughing all day; crying too, but not sure whether
it was tears of joy or sorrow:
u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
{
int i;
u32 m=1;
for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
m<<=1;
}
v&=m;
return v;
}
Phil
--
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7ncs8.d4k.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
| In reply to | #10722 |
Phil Carmody wrote:
) Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
) last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
) productivity, as measured by lines of code?
No, we don't do refactoring as it's too expensive, and the whole system
will be scrapped for the next-gen system five years ago.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87k48z1u8w.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10729 |
Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes: > Phil Carmody wrote: > ) Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your > ) last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative > ) productivity, as measured by lines of code? > > No, we don't do refactoring as it's too expensive, and the whole system > will be scrapped for the next-gen system five years ago. I wasn't refactoring. I was bug-fixing. Removing shoddy code removed bugs. Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj820j4.msp.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
| In reply to | #10722 |
On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
> last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
> productivity, as measured by lines of code?
I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
got that kind of sense of humor.
> u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
> {
> int i;
> u32 m=1;
> for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
> m<<=1;
> }
> v&=m;
> return v;
> }
That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop initializer.
-s
--
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.bc63f378a1587d8ba419.20110927020619BST.8762kepzec.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #10975 |
Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
>> last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
>> productivity, as measured by lines of code?
>
> I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
> got that kind of sense of humor.
>
>> u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
>> {
>> int i;
>> u32 m=1;
>> for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
>> m<<=1;
>> }
>> v&=m;
>> return v;
>> }
>
> That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
> been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
> put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop
> initializer.
I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse.
Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1):
for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */;
The inverse was not computable but, hey, we have a table of the function
so we can search it:
for (int y = 0; y < N; y++)
/* find x such that f(x) = y */
for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
if (function_table[x] == y)
inverse_table[y] = x;
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #10983 |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
<ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
>
>> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
>>> last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
>>> productivity, as measured by lines of code?
>>
>> I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
>> got that kind of sense of humor.
>>
>>> u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>> u32 m=1;
>>> for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
>>> m<<=1;
>>> }
>>> v&=m;
>>> return v;
>>> }
>>
>> That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
>> been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
>> put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop
>> initializer.
>
>I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse.
>Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1):
>
> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */;
>
>The inverse was not computable but, hey, we have a table of the function
>so we can search it:
>
> for (int y = 0; y < N; y++)
> /* find x such that f(x) = y */
> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> if (function_table[x] == y)
> inverse_table[y] = x;
Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write
for (int x = 0; x < N;x++)
inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x;
or should one just appreciate it for the thing of beauty that it is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web