Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.lisp > #61270 > unrolled thread

Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.lisp

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-03 19:23 +0800
    Re: Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-03 14:29 +0000
    Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Was: Malicious Computer Architecture) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:10 +0200
      But how can you deploy. when its ROM? (Was: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:15 +0200
        GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries (Was: But how can you deploy. when its ROM?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-07 14:37 +0200
          What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip] (Re: GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-07 18:07 +0200
            Cristallina: Thank you for the Beam (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 21:22 +0200
              Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-18 16:26 +0200
                How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-18 16:50 +0200
                  Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:24 +0800
                Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 03:21 +0800
                  Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-18 21:13 +0100
                    Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-18 22:49 +0000
                      Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 08:32 +0800
                      Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-08-21 02:08 -0400
                        Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:25 +0800
                          Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-08-21 16:28 -0400
                    Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group] Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-19 08:27 +0800
                William A. Howard solved all his 99 problems (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-23 01:48 +0200
            The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster [GPU Channels] (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-11 16:27 +0200
              The luminaries of duct-tape engineering [Sweeney and Torvald] (Was: The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster [GPU Channels]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-11 16:51 +0200
    Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-03 19:51 +0100
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 00:22 +0800
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-08-04 19:10 +0100
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-08-06 21:55 +0000
          Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-07 06:31 +0800
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-08-06 23:01 +0100
          Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-07 06:45 +0800
      Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-08-04 18:13 +0000
        Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 03:48 +0800
          Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir <thanks-to@Taf.com> - 2026-08-04 22:01 +0000
            Re: Malicious Computer Architecture Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-05 06:25 +0800
    A Case for Impurity: The Applied Pi Calculus (Re: Malicious Computer Architecture) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-04 14:58 +0200
      The Sandcastle of Paul Taraus Interactors (Re: A Case for Impurity: The Applied Pi Calculus) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-04 15:10 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#61270 — Malicious Computer Architecture (was: Re: Prioritize Performance over Correctness)

On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
> 
>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small microcontrollers 
>>> and DSPs having different kinds of pointers with different sizes, 
>>> depending on the memory space involved.  I have yet to see a 
>>> situation where there was any reason for storing a function address 
>>> in a "void*" rather than a more appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>
>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>
>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>
> 
> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for function 
> pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer type.  If 
> the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a requirement that 
> function pointers are converted to or from void* for some calls, then of 
> course you need to follow those requirements - it's the people who 
> designed the interfaces that made questionable design choices.
> 

Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.

Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.

I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.

You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
tecture that has different

*  sizeof ( void * ), and
*  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),

and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.


[1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#61271

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
>On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, A respected comp.lang.c poster wrote:

>Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.

Hey dipshit, you're responding to a post in comp.lang.c and
cross-posting your reply to other unrelated groups.   Please don't
do that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61272 — Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Was: Malicious Computer Architecture)

Hi,

 > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.

 > that has different
 > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
 > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),

Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
Which has then the advantage of:

Modern operating systems like Windows 11
enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
(or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
malicious programs from injecting and executing
code inside data-only memory regions.
https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/

I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:

Slide 58, Hack Computer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view

But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
allows storage annotations read_write and

read. I use read_write for the data RAM
of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can

see that here, its open source:

@group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
@group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;

11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget

Hope this Helps!

Bye

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small microcontrollers 
>>>> and DSPs having different kinds of pointers with different sizes, 
>>>> depending on the memory space involved.  I have yet to see a 
>>>> situation where there was any reason for storing a function address 
>>>> in a "void*" rather than a more appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>
>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>
>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>
>>
>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for function 
>> pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer type.  If 
>> the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a requirement 
>> that function pointers are converted to or from void* for some calls, 
>> then of course you need to follow those requirements - it's the people 
>> who designed the interfaces that made questionable design choices.
>>
> 
> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
> 
> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
> 
> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
> 
> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
> tecture that has different
> 
> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
> 
> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
> 
> 
> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61273 — But how can you deploy. when its ROM? (Was: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...])

Hi,

Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
of the GPU, which is the command processor

queue of the GPU device. So basically as
a CPU client I can write the memory area,
that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.

And this way have a compiler, even written
in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
that can then be then deployed to GPU.

You could also try the same with a Tiny
LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
> 
>  > that has different
>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
> 
> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
> Which has then the advantage of:
> 
> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
> malicious programs from injecting and executing
> code inside data-only memory regions.
> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
> 
> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
> 
> Slide 58, Hack Computer
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
> 
> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
> allows storage annotations read_write and
> 
> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
> 
> see that here, its open source:
> 
> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
> 
> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
> 
> Hope this Helps!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers with 
>>>>> different sizes, depending on the memory space involved.  I have 
>>>>> yet to see a situation where there was any reason for storing a 
>>>>> function address in a "void*" rather than a more appropriate 
>>>>> typedef, such as :
>>>>>
>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>
>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer 
>>> type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a 
>>> requirement that function pointers are converted to or from void* for 
>>> some calls, then of course you need to follow those requirements - 
>>> it's the people who designed the interfaces that made questionable 
>>> design choices.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>
>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>
>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>
>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>> tecture that has different
>>
>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>
>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>
>>
>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61323 — GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries (Was: But how can you deploy. when its ROM?)

Hi,

How it started, NVIDIA being cool:

NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
and point-to-point send and receive. These
routines are optimized to achieve high
bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
interconnects within a node and over
NVIDIA networking across nodes.
https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl

How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:

[RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
However, there are no standardized methods for
performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
own implementations of the weight syncing
infrastructure, leading to added complexity
for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
inference server for post-training workloads.
https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848

How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
Processing parallelism, and now also

GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
parallelism, and last but least you might have
a couple DMAs sitting here and there,

or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
> of the GPU, which is the command processor
> 
> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
> 
> And this way have a compiler, even written
> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
> 
> You could also try the same with a Tiny
> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
> 
> Have Fun!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>
>>  > that has different
>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>
>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>
>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
>>
>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>
>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
>>
>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>
>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>
>> see that here, its open source:
>>
>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>
>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>
>> Hope this Helps!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers with 
>>>>>> different sizes, depending on the memory space involved.  I have 
>>>>>> yet to see a situation where there was any reason for storing a 
>>>>>> function address in a "void*" rather than a more appropriate 
>>>>>> typedef, such as :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>
>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function pointer 
>>>> type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries makes it a 
>>>> requirement that function pointers are converted to or from void* 
>>>> for some calls, then of course you need to follow those requirements 
>>>> - it's the people who designed the interfaces that made questionable 
>>>> design choices.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>
>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>
>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>
>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>>> tecture that has different
>>>
>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>
>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61325 — What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip] (Re: GPU Elasticity: Collective Communications Libraries)

Hi,

Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.

But what is a flit? It seems multiple
flits can be used to create the message
passing in one directiob before the

ACK or NACK in the other direction?

"The growing need for performance from
computing systems drove the industry into
the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
is split across multiple processors and the
computation happens in parallel

Flits represent logical units of information,
while phits represent the physical domain,
that is, phits represent the number of bits
that can be transferred in parallel in a
single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
an interconnection network which uses

flit level message flow control wherein each
flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
It also uses the flit level message flow
control, but its flit size is equal to its
phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example

Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
schemes for flits and phits.

Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
and forget, no ACK and NACK:

π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773

Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
can beat an unbounded buffer!

LoL

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
> 
> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
> and point-to-point send and receive. These
> routines are optimized to achieve high
> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
> interconnects within a node and over
> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
> 
> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
> 
> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
> However, there are no standardized methods for
> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
> own implementations of the weight syncing
> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
> inference server for post-training workloads.
> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
> 
> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
> Processing parallelism, and now also
> 
> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
> parallelism, and last but least you might have
> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
> 
> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>
>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>
>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>
>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>
>> Have Fun!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>
>>>  > that has different
>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>
>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>
>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
>>>
>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>
>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
>>>
>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>
>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>
>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>
>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>
>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>
>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers with 
>>>>>>> different sizes, depending on the memory space involved.  I have 
>>>>>>> yet to see a situation where there was any reason for storing a 
>>>>>>> function address in a "void*" rather than a more appropriate 
>>>>>>> typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to or 
>>>>> from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow those 
>>>>> requirements - it's the people who designed the interfaces that 
>>>>> made questionable design choices.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>
>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>
>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>
>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>
>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61343 — Cristallina: Thank you for the Beam (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip])

Hi,

How it started:

Filming a vitamin B12 photoreceptor in action
https://www.psi.ch/de/news/science-features/filming-a-vitamin-b12-photoreceptor-in-action

How its going:

Elon Musk's potential FEL route could challenge EUV lithography
https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/elon-musk-s-potential-fel-route-could-challenge-euv-lithography

Who will win the Nano Atom mover race,

will the USA OutChip its competitor China
and its supplier Asia in the next years?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
> a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
> backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.
> 
> But what is a flit? It seems multiple
> flits can be used to create the message
> passing in one directiob before the
> 
> ACK or NACK in the other direction?
> 
> "The growing need for performance from
> computing systems drove the industry into
> the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
> setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
> is split across multiple processors and the
> computation happens in parallel
> 
> Flits represent logical units of information,
> while phits represent the physical domain,
> that is, phits represent the number of bits
> that can be transferred in parallel in a
> single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
> an interconnection network which uses
> 
> flit level message flow control wherein each
> flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
> means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
> is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
> It also uses the flit level message flow
> control, but its flit size is equal to its
> phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example
> 
> Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
> is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
> from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
> schemes for flits and phits.
> 
> Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
> the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
> objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
> and forget, no ACK and NACK:
> 
> π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
> https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773
> 
> Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
> can beat an unbounded buffer!
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
>>
>> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
>> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
>> and point-to-point send and receive. These
>> routines are optimized to achieve high
>> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
>> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
>> interconnects within a node and over
>> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
>> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
>>
>> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
>>
>> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
>> However, there are no standardized methods for
>> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
>> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
>> own implementations of the weight syncing
>> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
>> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
>> inference server for post-training workloads.
>> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
>>
>> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
>> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
>> Processing parallelism, and now also
>>
>> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
>> parallelism, and last but least you might have
>> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
>>
>> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>>
>>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>>
>>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>>
>>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>>
>>> Have Fun!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>
>>>>  > that has different
>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>
>>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>>
>>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
>>>>
>>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>>
>>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
>>>>
>>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>>
>>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>>
>>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>>
>>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>>
>>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>>
>>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers 
>>>>>>>> with different sizes, depending on the memory space involved.  I 
>>>>>>>> have yet to see a situation where there was any reason for 
>>>>>>>> storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a more 
>>>>>>>> appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to or 
>>>>>> from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow those 
>>>>>> requirements - it's the people who designed the interfaces that 
>>>>>> made questionable design choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>>
>>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>
>>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61497 — Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

Hi,

Sometimes I think the Loderunner Enemy AI
was way ahead of its time:

Lode Runner - Broderbund - 1983 - Apple II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJZJepU8law

Meanwhile SWI-Prolog Prologers even don't know
whether a Prolog text is CNF or DNF:

Sets of rules as conjunctions and/or disjunctions
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/sets-of-rules-as-conjunctions-and-or-disjunctions/9779

No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.

Bye

P.S.: If only there would exist something like
universities where one can take a basic course in
FOL, and then a world wide web, where one can

lookup clark equational theory, clark completion,
curry howard correspondence, etc.. etc..

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Obviously to generate AI Surprises,
> you have to stand on the shoulder of
> giants. Otherwise you will not discover
> 
> surprises, right? Only mediocre deja vues.
> For this purpose, and maybe otherwise
> related, in a discussion concerning the future
> 
> of the library, Marvin Minsky and Edward A.
> Feigenbaum endorsed the idea for books
> to ‘talk to each other’:
> 
> LET DOCUMENTS TALK TO EACH OTHER
> Z. CHEN - 1993
> doi.org/10.1108/eb026910
> 
> Now we have:
> 
> THE MACHINES ARE STUDYING
> THE HUMANS ARE SCROLLING
> https://9gag.com/gag/a9yQ16o
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: But who was Marvin Minsky, and would it
> be important to use symbolic AI?
> 
> The Perceptron Controversy
> Yuxi Liu - 2024
> https://yuxi.ml/essays/perceptron-controversy
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How it started:
>>
>> Filming a vitamin B12 photoreceptor in action
>> https://www.psi.ch/de/news/science-features/filming-a-vitamin-b12-photoreceptor-in-action 
>>
>>
>> How its going:
>>
>> Elon Musk's potential FEL route could challenge EUV lithography
>> https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/elon-musk-s-potential-fel-route-could-challenge-euv-lithography 
>>
>>
>> Who will win the Nano Atom mover race,
>>
>> will the USA OutChip its competitor China
>> and its supplier Asia in the next years?
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
>>> a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
>>> backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.
>>>
>>> But what is a flit? It seems multiple
>>> flits can be used to create the message
>>> passing in one directiob before the
>>>
>>> ACK or NACK in the other direction?
>>>
>>> "The growing need for performance from
>>> computing systems drove the industry into
>>> the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
>>> setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
>>> is split across multiple processors and the
>>> computation happens in parallel
>>>
>>> Flits represent logical units of information,
>>> while phits represent the physical domain,
>>> that is, phits represent the number of bits
>>> that can be transferred in parallel in a
>>> single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
>>> an interconnection network which uses
>>>
>>> flit level message flow control wherein each
>>> flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
>>> means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
>>> is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
>>> It also uses the flit level message flow
>>> control, but its flit size is equal to its
>>> phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example
>>>
>>> Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
>>> is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
>>> from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
>>> schemes for flits and phits.
>>>
>>> Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
>>> the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
>>> objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
>>> and forget, no ACK and NACK:
>>>
>>> π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
>>> https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773
>>>
>>> Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
>>> can beat an unbounded buffer!
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
>>>>
>>>> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
>>>> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
>>>> and point-to-point send and receive. These
>>>> routines are optimized to achieve high
>>>> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
>>>> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
>>>> interconnects within a node and over
>>>> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
>>>> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
>>>>
>>>> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
>>>>
>>>> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
>>>> However, there are no standardized methods for
>>>> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
>>>> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
>>>> own implementations of the weight syncing
>>>> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
>>>> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
>>>> inference server for post-training workloads.
>>>> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
>>>>
>>>> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
>>>> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
>>>> Processing parallelism, and now also
>>>>
>>>> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
>>>> parallelism, and last but least you might have
>>>> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
>>>>
>>>> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>>>>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>>>>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>>>>
>>>>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>>>>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>>>>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>>>>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>>>>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>>>>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>>>>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have Fun!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  > that has different
>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>>>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>>>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>>>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>>>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>>>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>>>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/ 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>>>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>>>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>>>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>>>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>>>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>>>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers 
>>>>>>>>>> with different sizes, depending on the memory space involved. 
>>>>>>>>>> I have yet to see a situation where there was any reason for 
>>>>>>>>>> storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a more 
>>>>>>>>>> appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to 
>>>>>>>> or from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow 
>>>>>>>> those requirements - it's the people who designed the interfaces 
>>>>>>>> that made questionable design choices.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>>>>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an 
>>>>>>> archi-
>>>>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61498 — How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

Hi,

The biggest joke, is to have logic somewhere
in procedure and somewhere in declarative, and
try to see different takes on logic.

They really don't know what this mantra means:

Algorithm = Logic + Control

And cannot relate it to the ideas of declarative
reading and procedural reading. The problem is
a too lax introduction of this notions,

prematurely before the notion "logic" is
even understood. But nobody understands the
meaning of the term "logic", i.e. a set of

supposedly tautological sentences, as under-
stood by mathematical logic. There is a subtle
error again to conflate it with a "calculus",

so this website has a very misleanding title,
although they try hard to not commit the fallacy,
and have subtitles "Proof System" and "Logic Level":

Welcome to LogicProof
https://6ximik9.github.io/naturalDeduction/

Then there is this moron:

There is only one “minimal logic”. The term denotes Johansson’s 
Minimalkalkül [1937] — intuitionistic logic without ex falso quodlibet — 
and nothing else. No rival system competes for the name.
https://vidal-rosset.net/rule-correspondence-F.html

Of course there are rival "Proof Systems" aka
calculi, even when the "Logic Level" is minimal
logic. It is as if Joseph Vidal-Rosset doesn't

understand basic German. You have to look behind
"Minimalkalkül" to find "Minimallogic". Right?
To identify calculus with logic, is maybe a 1930's

fallacy, but then we had model theory besides
proof theory, and people should be more educated
now. Model theory can be also expanded to

non-classical logics and even minimal logic, to
give a purely semantic reading. Ok some modern
morons think they need to invoke the word "algebraic".

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Sometimes I think the Loderunner Enemy AI
> was way ahead of its time:
> 
> Lode Runner - Broderbund - 1983 - Apple II
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJZJepU8law
> 
> Meanwhile SWI-Prolog Prologers even don't know
> whether a Prolog text is CNF or DNF:
> 
> Sets of rules as conjunctions and/or disjunctions
> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/sets-of-rules-as-conjunctions-and-or-disjunctions/9779 
> 
> 
> No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
> nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: If only there would exist something like
> universities where one can take a basic course in
> FOL, and then a world wide web, where one can
> 
> lookup clark equational theory, clark completion,
> curry howard correspondence, etc.. etc..
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Obviously to generate AI Surprises,
>> you have to stand on the shoulder of
>> giants. Otherwise you will not discover
>>
>> surprises, right? Only mediocre deja vues.
>> For this purpose, and maybe otherwise
>> related, in a discussion concerning the future
>>
>> of the library, Marvin Minsky and Edward A.
>> Feigenbaum endorsed the idea for books
>> to ‘talk to each other’:
>>
>> LET DOCUMENTS TALK TO EACH OTHER
>> Z. CHEN - 1993
>> doi.org/10.1108/eb026910
>>
>> Now we have:
>>
>> THE MACHINES ARE STUDYING
>> THE HUMANS ARE SCROLLING
>> https://9gag.com/gag/a9yQ16o
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: But who was Marvin Minsky, and would it
>> be important to use symbolic AI?
>>
>> The Perceptron Controversy
>> Yuxi Liu - 2024
>> https://yuxi.ml/essays/perceptron-controversy
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> How it started:
>>>
>>> Filming a vitamin B12 photoreceptor in action
>>> https://www.psi.ch/de/news/science-features/filming-a-vitamin-b12-photoreceptor-in-action 
>>>
>>>
>>> How its going:
>>>
>>> Elon Musk's potential FEL route could challenge EUV lithography
>>> https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/elon-musk-s-potential-fel-route-could-challenge-euv-lithography 
>>>
>>>
>>> Who will win the Nano Atom mover race,
>>>
>>> will the USA OutChip its competitor China
>>> and its supplier Asia in the next years?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
>>>> a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
>>>> backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.
>>>>
>>>> But what is a flit? It seems multiple
>>>> flits can be used to create the message
>>>> passing in one directiob before the
>>>>
>>>> ACK or NACK in the other direction?
>>>>
>>>> "The growing need for performance from
>>>> computing systems drove the industry into
>>>> the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
>>>> setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
>>>> is split across multiple processors and the
>>>> computation happens in parallel
>>>>
>>>> Flits represent logical units of information,
>>>> while phits represent the physical domain,
>>>> that is, phits represent the number of bits
>>>> that can be transferred in parallel in a
>>>> single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
>>>> an interconnection network which uses
>>>>
>>>> flit level message flow control wherein each
>>>> flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
>>>> means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
>>>> is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
>>>> It also uses the flit level message flow
>>>> control, but its flit size is equal to its
>>>> phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example
>>>>
>>>> Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
>>>> is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
>>>> from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
>>>> schemes for flits and phits.
>>>>
>>>> Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
>>>> the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
>>>> objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
>>>> and forget, no ACK and NACK:
>>>>
>>>> π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
>>>> https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773
>>>>
>>>> Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
>>>> can beat an unbounded buffer!
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
>>>>>
>>>>> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
>>>>> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
>>>>> and point-to-point send and receive. These
>>>>> routines are optimized to achieve high
>>>>> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
>>>>> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
>>>>> interconnects within a node and over
>>>>> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
>>>>> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
>>>>>
>>>>> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
>>>>>
>>>>> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
>>>>> However, there are no standardized methods for
>>>>> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
>>>>> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
>>>>> own implementations of the weight syncing
>>>>> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
>>>>> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
>>>>> inference server for post-training workloads.
>>>>> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
>>>>>
>>>>> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
>>>>> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
>>>>> Processing parallelism, and now also
>>>>>
>>>>> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
>>>>> parallelism, and last but least you might have
>>>>> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
>>>>>
>>>>> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>>>>>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>>>>>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>>>>>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>>>>>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>>>>>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>>>>>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>>>>>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>>>>>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have Fun!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > that has different
>>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>>>>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>>>>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>>>>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>>>>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>>>>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>>>>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/ 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>>>>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>>>>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>>>>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>>>>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>>>>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>>>>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers 
>>>>>>>>>>> with different sizes, depending on the memory space involved. 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have yet to see a situation where there was any reason for 
>>>>>>>>>>> storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a more 
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a 
>>>>>>>>>> void*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to 
>>>>>>>>> or from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow 
>>>>>>>>> those requirements - it's the people who designed the 
>>>>>>>>> interfaces that made questionable design choices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built 
>>>>>>>> on C,
>>>>>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>>>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>>>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>>>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>>>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an 
>>>>>>>> archi-
>>>>>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>>>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>>>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61500 — Re: How to shoot yourself in the foot (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On 18/08/2026 10:50 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The biggest joke, is to have logic somewhere
> in procedure and somewhere in declarative, and
> try to see different takes on logic.
> 
> They really don't know what this mantra means:
> 
> Algorithm = Logic + Control
> 
> And cannot relate it to the ideas of declarative
> reading and procedural reading. The problem is
> a too lax introduction of this notions,
> 
> prematurely before the notion "logic" is
> even understood. But nobody understands the
> meaning of the term "logic", i.e. a set of
> 
> supposedly tautological sentences, as under-
> stood by mathematical logic. There is a subtle
> error again to conflate it with a "calculus",
> 
> so this website has a very misleanding title,
> although they try hard to not commit the fallacy,
> and have subtitles "Proof System" and "Logic Level":
> 
> Welcome to LogicProof
> https://6ximik9.github.io/naturalDeduction/
> 
> Then there is this moron:
> 
> There is only one “minimal logic”. The term denotes Johansson’s 
> Minimalkalkül [1937] — intuitionistic logic without ex falso quodlibet — 
> and nothing else. No rival system competes for the name.
> https://vidal-rosset.net/rule-correspondence-F.html
> 
> Of course there are rival "Proof Systems" aka
> calculi, even when the "Logic Level" is minimal
> logic. It is as if Joseph Vidal-Rosset doesn't
> 
> understand basic German. You have to look behind
> "Minimalkalkül" to find "Minimallogic". Right?
> To identify calculus with logic, is maybe a 1930's
> 
> fallacy, but then we had model theory besides
> proof theory, and people should be more educated
> now. Model theory can be also expanded to
> 
> non-classical logics and even minimal logic, to
> give a purely semantic reading. Ok some modern
> morons think they need to invoke the word "algebraic".
> 
All my graphic art in CorelDRAW! is done with algebraic curves.  I found
the regular Bezier curves simply boring, and /upgraded/ my curvatures to
/algebraic/.

Do you also draw with algebraic curves in your vector drawing utility of
choice?  Is it Xfig?
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61499 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On 18/08/2026 10:26 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sometimes I think the Loderunner Enemy AI
> was way ahead of its time:
> 
> Lode Runner - Broderbund - 1983 - Apple II
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJZJepU8law
> 
> Meanwhile SWI-Prolog Prologers even don't know
> whether a Prolog text is CNF or DNF:

Are you coding the SWI interfaces in RISC OS in Prolog?  Isn't it much
more fruitful to code it in the /Acorn RISC Machine/ assembly?

> 
> Sets of rules as conjunctions and/or disjunctions
> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/sets-of-rules-as-conjunctions-and- 
> or-disjunctions/9779


So, is this set of conjunctions and disjunctions about how to create set
intersections and unions of windows on RISC OS?  Why is that important?

> 
> No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
> nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.


Does wearing an eye patch help when writing Prolog?  I ask because I
have never coded any Prolog before.

Corollary, since an eye patch would hide my central heterochromia, would
that not hinder my ability to reason?

> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: If only there would exist something like
> universities where one can take a basic course in
> FOL, and then a world wide web, where one can

What is F.O.L?

> 
> lookup clark equational theory, clark completion,
> curry howard correspondence, etc.. etc..

You can always complete your journey at the Clark International Airport
in the Philippines.  Let me know when you do.


As always, you've been greatly helpful, and mildly amusing, Mild Shock!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61501 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

 Ar an naoú lá déag de mí Lúnasa, scríobh Johann Oskarsson: 

 > On 18/08/2026 10:26 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
 > > [...] No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
 > > nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.
 > 
 > Does wearing an eye patch help when writing Prolog?  I ask because I
 > have never coded any Prolog before.

I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying machine in
any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I don’t recommend it.

 > Corollary, since an eye patch would hide my central heterochromia, would
 > that not hinder my ability to reason?

No comment.

-- 
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61502 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 21:13:10 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:

> I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying
> machine in any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I
> don’t recommend it.

I did briefly flirt with it, a decade earlier. I found it “very high
level”, in that its brute-force pattern-matching-plus-backtracking
execution paradigm was well-suited to solving certain kinds of logic
problems (it’s in the name of the language after all). Though I guess
you’d get a blowup in execution time and memory in more complex
real-world situations.

You know the old “Who Owns The Zebra?” logic puzzle (or some variant
thereof)? You basically code the given clues directly into Prolog, run
the result as a program, and out pops the answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61504 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On 19/08/2026 6:49 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 21:13:10 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> 
>> I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying
>> machine in any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I
>> don’t recommend it.
> 
> I did briefly flirt with it, a decade earlier. I found it “very high
> level”, in that its brute-force pattern-matching-plus-backtracking
> execution paradigm was well-suited to solving certain kinds of logic
> problems (it’s in the name of the language after all). Though I guess
> you’d get a blowup in execution time and memory in more complex
> real-world situations.
> 
> You know the old “Who Owns The Zebra?” logic puzzle (or some variant
> thereof)? You basically code the given clues directly into Prolog, run
> the result as a program, and out pops the answer.

Dear Lawrence,

Have you thought to code yourself as a logical puzzle solving character
in text adventures, with or without the help of Prolog?

Do you think you can do so without ever mentioning Python?  Or do you
love snakes so much you cannot live without it?  Are you perhaps a
graduate of the Slitherin magical university?

I have added rec.arts.int-fiction to this discussion, and alt.fantasy,
even though we don't discuss Slitherins there.


Happy coding yourself in a text adventure game!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61515 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:49:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 21:13:10 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
>> I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying
>> machine in any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I
>> don’t recommend it.
>
>I did briefly flirt with it, a decade earlier. I found it “very high
>level”, in that its brute-force pattern-matching-plus-backtracking
>execution paradigm was well-suited to solving certain kinds of logic
>problems (it’s in the name of the language after all). Though I guess
>you’d get a blowup in execution time and memory in more complex
>real-world situations.
>
>You know the old “Who Owns The Zebra?” logic puzzle (or some variant
>thereof)? You basically code the given clues directly into Prolog, run
>the result as a program, and out pops the answer.

If the task involves a rule-based decision system, then Prolog can be
a reasonable tool for the job.  But in my experience most Prologs
don't interface well - to the world, or to libraries written in other
languages.

Prolog uses backward chaining Horn logic - essentially you start with
a [generic] "answer" in the form of a rule and look to see if the rule
can be supported by facts in your database.

Sometimes you want to work the other way, ie. go forward from facts to
rules that are supported by them. Prolog can't do that.


There are plenty of problems that can benefit from a Prolog-style rule
system, but if you need one I think it is better to use an embeddable
implementation, and write your main program in a language that is more
suitable to interfacing with the world.

There are embeddable Prologs and [Horn logic] workalike libraries
available for a number of languages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61517 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On 21/08/2026 2:08 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:49:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 21:13:10 +0100, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>>
>>> I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying
>>> machine in any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I
>>> don’t recommend it.
>>
>> I did briefly flirt with it, a decade earlier. I found it “very high
>> level”, in that its brute-force pattern-matching-plus-backtracking
>> execution paradigm was well-suited to solving certain kinds of logic
>> problems (it’s in the name of the language after all). Though I guess
>> you’d get a blowup in execution time and memory in more complex
>> real-world situations.
>>
>> You know the old “Who Owns The Zebra?” logic puzzle (or some variant
>> thereof)? You basically code the given clues directly into Prolog, run
>> the result as a program, and out pops the answer.
> 
> If the task involves a rule-based decision system, then Prolog can be
> a reasonable tool for the job.  But in my experience most Prologs
> don't interface well - to the world, or to libraries written in other
> languages.
> 
> Prolog uses backward chaining Horn logic - essentially you start with
> a [generic] "answer" in the form of a rule and look to see if the rule
> can be supported by facts in your database.
> 
> Sometimes you want to work the other way, ie. go forward from facts to
> rules that are supported by them. Prolog can't do that.
> 
> 
> There are plenty of problems that can benefit from a Prolog-style rule
> system, but if you need one I think it is better to use an embeddable
> implementation, and write your main program in a language that is more
> suitable to interfacing with the world.
> 
> There are embeddable Prologs and [Horn logic] workalike libraries
> available for a number of languages.

Indeed.  I recall reading a book that showed how to implement Prolog
style logic reasoning in Lisp.  Not sure if that was S.I.C.P.

Or am I remembering the famous lectures, from the 80s?

In any case, implementing Prolog-style rules and then just using them
in a larger programming language seemed trivial at the time.  I have
no practical experience with this, however.
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61523 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 15:25:23 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson
<johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:

>On 21/08/2026 2:08 PM, George Neuner wrote:
> 
>> There are embeddable Prologs and [Horn logic] workalike libraries
>> available for a number of languages.
>
>Indeed.  I recall reading a book that showed how to implement Prolog
>style logic reasoning in Lisp.  Not sure if that was S.I.C.P.

Yes, S.I.C.P. presents a simple implementation of logic processing.
[It was targeted to Scheme though - not Lisp].

Far better - and more on topic in C.L.L - is Tanimoto's "The Elements
of Artificial Intelligence Using Common Lisp".


>Or am I remembering the famous lectures, from the 80s?

No doubt you might be. Rule-based decision logic was a hot topic back
then.


>In any case, implementing Prolog-style rules and then just using them
>in a larger programming language seemed trivial at the time.  I have
>no practical experience with this, however.

Horn logic is simple. 8-)

What is not so simple is how best to organize the rule-base for rapid
searching.  Recall that the rule/fact-base is /content/ addressable
memory, and that rules can modify it by adding or deleting facts and
rules.
You might immediately think "well, a hash table is a CAM" - and
certainly hash tables will work - but any simple implementation is
guaranteed to be poorly performing.

Also implementing a fast unification style matcher is a PITA -
fortunately there are good match libraries to use.

The other hurdle is search backtracking /with cuts/.  Backtracking is
not difficult, but implementing cuts can be problematic.
In Prolog, cuts (the ! operator) prevent backtracking from the cut
point - it has the effect of constraining the search to trying to
match the current rule
[Note that searching / matching the "current rule" still may involve
backtracking.  Cuts don't stop backtracking, but rather they give the
programmer some control over it.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61503 — Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog? [Prolog Education Group]

On 19/08/2026 4:13 AM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> 
>   Ar an naoú lá déag de mí Lúnasa, scríobh Johann Oskarsson:
> 
>   > On 18/08/2026 10:26 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>   > > [...] No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
>   > > nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.
>   >
>   > Does wearing an eye patch help when writing Prolog?  I ask because I
>   > have never coded any Prolog before.
> 
> I coded Prolog in 1998-1999. It is not oriented to the underlying machine in
> any useful way, and its syntax is not human-friendly. I don’t recommend it.

Dear Aidan,

Thank you for that summary.  Now I positively know that I am in no hurry
to dabble in Prolog, eye patch or no eye patch; see below.
> 
>   > Corollary, since an eye patch would hide my central heterochromia, would
>   > that not hinder my ability to reason?
> 
> No comment.
> 

This was an oblique and opaque reference to the great literary work of
Torako of Japan called /Chuunibyou demo Koi ga Shitai/, or

   /Love, Chunibyo & Other Delusions/

and while I don't like to link to Wikipedia, it has a picture of the eye
patch in question, so you can gaze upon the wonder that is Rikka Taka-
nashi,

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love,_Chunibyo_%26_Other_Delusions

and I sincerely hope that you consider adding this work of great litera-
ture to your no-doubt ever-growing pile of Tsundoku.

And unlike the literary work, or anime if you prefer, my central hetero-
chromia is not something I can just turn on and off; it's always there.

I do not have an /evil eye/, at least in the traditional sense of liter-
ary fantasy, but am willing to dabble in evil according to the dogma of
the G.N.U. fantasy reality.

And on the subject of such evils, you'll see me join the XEmacs list of
mails in the near future, so I added comp.emacs.xemacs to this discuss-
ion.


Best wishes!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61538 — William A. Howard solved all his 99 problems (Re: Loderunner Enemy AI better than SWI-Prolog?)

Hi,

Woa! I am impressed:

Howard died in Chicago on March 13, 2026,
at the age of 99.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alvin_Howard

I recomend every body reading his original Curry-Howard
Isomorphism paper. He even mentions sigma types,
calling it Strong existence (choice operators):

THE FORMULAE-AS-TYPES NOTION OF CONSTRUCTION
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~crary/819-f09/Howard80.pdf

Can you derive a Prolog program for proof
normalization? A good setting to read the paper
is a greek FKK beach.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Sometimes I think the Loderunner Enemy AI
> was way ahead of its time:
> 
> Lode Runner - Broderbund - 1983 - Apple II
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJZJepU8law
> 
> Meanwhile SWI-Prolog Prologers even don't know
> whether a Prolog text is CNF or DNF:
> 
> Sets of rules as conjunctions and/or disjunctions
> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/sets-of-rules-as-conjunctions-and-or-disjunctions/9779 
> 
> 
> No Wonder that the EyeProlog "why" feature produces
> nonsense. Even a Flea circus is less crazy.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: If only there would exist something like
> universities where one can take a basic course in
> FOL, and then a world wide web, where one can
> 
> lookup clark equational theory, clark completion,
> curry howard correspondence, etc.. etc..
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Obviously to generate AI Surprises,
>> you have to stand on the shoulder of
>> giants. Otherwise you will not discover
>>
>> surprises, right? Only mediocre deja vues.
>> For this purpose, and maybe otherwise
>> related, in a discussion concerning the future
>>
>> of the library, Marvin Minsky and Edward A.
>> Feigenbaum endorsed the idea for books
>> to ‘talk to each other’:
>>
>> LET DOCUMENTS TALK TO EACH OTHER
>> Z. CHEN - 1993
>> doi.org/10.1108/eb026910
>>
>> Now we have:
>>
>> THE MACHINES ARE STUDYING
>> THE HUMANS ARE SCROLLING
>> https://9gag.com/gag/a9yQ16o
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: But who was Marvin Minsky, and would it
>> be important to use symbolic AI?
>>
>> The Perceptron Controversy
>> Yuxi Liu - 2024
>> https://yuxi.ml/essays/perceptron-controversy
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> How it started:
>>>
>>> Filming a vitamin B12 photoreceptor in action
>>> https://www.psi.ch/de/news/science-features/filming-a-vitamin-b12-photoreceptor-in-action 
>>>
>>>
>>> How its going:
>>>
>>> Elon Musk's potential FEL route could challenge EUV lithography
>>> https://www.kucoin.com/news/flash/elon-musk-s-potential-fel-route-could-challenge-euv-lithography 
>>>
>>>
>>> Who will win the Nano Atom mover race,
>>>
>>> will the USA OutChip its competitor China
>>> and its supplier Asia in the next years?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
>>>> a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
>>>> backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.
>>>>
>>>> But what is a flit? It seems multiple
>>>> flits can be used to create the message
>>>> passing in one directiob before the
>>>>
>>>> ACK or NACK in the other direction?
>>>>
>>>> "The growing need for performance from
>>>> computing systems drove the industry into
>>>> the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
>>>> setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
>>>> is split across multiple processors and the
>>>> computation happens in parallel
>>>>
>>>> Flits represent logical units of information,
>>>> while phits represent the physical domain,
>>>> that is, phits represent the number of bits
>>>> that can be transferred in parallel in a
>>>> single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
>>>> an interconnection network which uses
>>>>
>>>> flit level message flow control wherein each
>>>> flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
>>>> means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
>>>> is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
>>>> It also uses the flit level message flow
>>>> control, but its flit size is equal to its
>>>> phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example
>>>>
>>>> Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
>>>> is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
>>>> from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
>>>> schemes for flits and phits.
>>>>
>>>> Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
>>>> the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
>>>> objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
>>>> and forget, no ACK and NACK:
>>>>
>>>> π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
>>>> https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773
>>>>
>>>> Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
>>>> can beat an unbounded buffer!
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
>>>>>
>>>>> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
>>>>> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
>>>>> and point-to-point send and receive. These
>>>>> routines are optimized to achieve high
>>>>> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
>>>>> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
>>>>> interconnects within a node and over
>>>>> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
>>>>> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
>>>>>
>>>>> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
>>>>>
>>>>> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
>>>>> However, there are no standardized methods for
>>>>> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
>>>>> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
>>>>> own implementations of the weight syncing
>>>>> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
>>>>> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
>>>>> inference server for post-training workloads.
>>>>> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
>>>>>
>>>>> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
>>>>> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
>>>>> Processing parallelism, and now also
>>>>>
>>>>> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
>>>>> parallelism, and last but least you might have
>>>>> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
>>>>>
>>>>> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>>>>>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>>>>>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>>>>>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>>>>>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>>>>>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>>>>>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>>>>>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>>>>>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have Fun!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > that has different
>>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>>>>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>>>>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>>>>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>>>>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>>>>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>>>>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/ 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>>>>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>>>>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>>>>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>>>>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>>>>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>>>>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>>>>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers 
>>>>>>>>>>> with different sizes, depending on the memory space involved. 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have yet to see a situation where there was any reason for 
>>>>>>>>>>> storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a more 
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a 
>>>>>>>>>> void*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to 
>>>>>>>>> or from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow 
>>>>>>>>> those requirements - it's the people who designed the 
>>>>>>>>> interfaces that made questionable design choices.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built 
>>>>>>>> on C,
>>>>>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>>>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>>>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>>>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>>>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an 
>>>>>>>> archi-
>>>>>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>>>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>>>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#61377 — The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster [GPU Channels] (Re: What are Flits and Phits? [Network on a Chip])

Hi,

Now I implemented some multiple producer
and multiple consumer channel objects for
WebGPU. The only API to integrate it user

facing into pi-WAM is this single predicate:

/**
  * flit(C):
  * The predicate succeeds in C with a new channel. The channel
  * can be used from within GPU backed π-WAM logical threads.
  */

The Mac Neo is a Budget Monster. While the
Ryzen AI Laptop cost around 1300.- CHF.
The Mac Neo was around 600.- CHF with all

extras. Here some performance results,
checking out whether channel objects scale,
when increasing their number to

communicate the same 1 millon packets:

Java performance:

AI Laptop    Single    Double
Ryzen    705.1    337.4
Neo    669.4    239.9

WebGPU performance:

AI Laptop    Single    Double
Ryzen    731.8    392.9
Neo    932.8    483.5

Cool! Java is also pretty cool, their
semaphore library is top notch. I couldn't
replicate the resulst with JavaScript yet,

seems their Atomics.wait() resp. Atomics.waitAsync()
is totally broken, using futex is mutex for
fools somehow. I also found some gremlins

attacking one of the GPUs. The Intel AI Laptop
fails the above experiment. Maybe its a driver
Vulkan versus OpenCL or something problem,

or the Lunar lake architecture is nonsense.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently there was a paper somebody mentioning
> a flit doing a ACK or NACK, to express
> backpressure inside a Network on a Chip.
> 
> But what is a flit? It seems multiple
> flits can be used to create the message
> passing in one directiob before the
> 
> ACK or NACK in the other direction?
> 
> "The growing need for performance from
> computing systems drove the industry into
> the multi-core and many-core arena. In this
> setup, the execution of a kernel (a program)
> is split across multiple processors and the
> computation happens in parallel
> 
> Flits represent logical units of information,
> while phits represent the physical domain,
> that is, phits represent the number of bits
> that can be transferred in parallel in a
> single cycle. Consider the Cray T3D. It has
> an interconnection network which uses
> 
> flit level message flow control wherein each
> flit is composed of eight 16-bit phits. That
> means its flit size is 128bits and phit size
> is 16bits. Also consider the IBM SP2 switch.
> It also uses the flit level message flow
> control, but its flit size is equal to its
> phit size, which is set to 8 bits."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flit_(computer_networking)#Example
> 
> Well my idea how this is realized in silicon
> is rather foggy, I mean even the Hack project
> from Nand 2 Tetris, does not show some gate level
> schemes for flits and phits.
> 
> Could be an interesting extension. But somehow
> the image of flits and phits inspired my channel
> objects here below. But I am afraid they are fire
> and forget, no ACK and NACK:
> 
> π-WAM Contest: 1 Million Packets with Prolog
> https://medium.com/2989/ec3e91551773
> 
> Its amazing that a max_size(1) buffer
> can beat an unbounded buffer!
> 
> LoL
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How it started, NVIDIA being cool:
>>
>> NCCL provides routines such as all-gather,
>> all-reduce, broadcast, reduce, reduce-scatter,
>> and point-to-point send and receive. These
>> routines are optimized to achieve high
>> bandwidth and low latency over PCIe,
>> NVIDIA NVLink™, and other high-speed
>> interconnects within a node and over
>> NVIDIA networking across nodes.
>> https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl
>>
>> How its going, vLLM trying to be cool:
>>
>> [RFC]: Native Weight Syncing APIs
>> However, there are no standardized methods for
>> performing online weight syncing. Open source projects
>> like SkyRL, VeRL, and TRL need to include their
>> own implementations of the weight syncing
>> infrastructure, leading to added complexity
>> for developers seeking to adopt vLLM as their
>> inference server for post-training workloads.
>> https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/issues/31848
>>
>> How much Workers are enough? I guess it depends
>> on I/O parallelism, CPU Memory parallelism, CPU
>> Processing parallelism, and now also
>>
>> GPU Memory parallelism and GPU Processing
>> parallelism, and last but least you might have
>> a couple DMAs sitting here and there,
>>
>> or even invoking a sort of RDMA. Quite amazing!
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Well there are two viewpoint, the "client"
>>> of the GPU, which is the CPU, and the "server"
>>> of the GPU, which is the command processor
>>>
>>> queue of the GPU device. So basically as
>>> a CPU client I can write the memory area,
>>> that is later mapped to my GPU code storage.
>>>
>>> And this way have a compiler, even written
>>> in Prolog, that compiles pi-WAM to my Hack VM,
>>> that can then be then deployed to GPU.
>>>
>>> You could also try the same with a Tiny
>>> LISP VM. And a grown up LISP to act as
>>> the compiler. Would be a similar exercise.
>>>
>>> Have Fun!
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>  > I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>
>>>>  > that has different
>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>  > *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>
>>>> Could indicate a data RAM and code ROM model.
>>>> Which has then the advantage of:
>>>>
>>>> Modern operating systems like Windows 11
>>>> enforce strict Data Execution Prevention (DEP)
>>>> (or NX/XD bit security features) to prevent
>>>> malicious programs from injecting and executing
>>>> code inside data-only memory regions.
>>>> https://root-nation.com/en/soft-en/lifehacks/en-dep-windows-all-about/
>>>>
>>>> I adopted data RAM and code ROM model for
>>>> pi-WAM from Hack, which has the same separation:
>>>>
>>>> Slide 58, Hack Computer
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_fxYmmRNXTkAzmZ6YMoX9NXZIRVCKiw/view
>>>>
>>>> But my motivation was not Johnny Depp prevention.
>>>> Rather the caching of GPUs. Because WGSL
>>>> allows storage annotations read_write and
>>>>
>>>> read. I use read_write for the data RAM
>>>> of my Hack VM variant, and read for the
>>>> code ROM of my Hack VM variant. You can
>>>>
>>>> see that here, its open source:
>>>>
>>>> @group(0) @binding(0) var<storage, read> code: array<i32>;
>>>> @group(0) @binding(1) var<storage, read_write> state: array<i32>;
>>>>
>>>> 11.4 Giga Lips with a Budget Laptop
>>>> https://github.com/Jean-Luc-Picard-2021/gigabudget
>>>>
>>>> Hope this Helps!
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson schrieb:
>>>>> On 03/08/2026 6:28 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 11:41, Richard Harnden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/08/2026 09:16, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On most targets, function pointers are the same size as void* 
>>>>>>>> pointers. But there are exceptions, with some small 
>>>>>>>> microcontrollers and DSPs having different kinds of pointers 
>>>>>>>> with different sizes, depending on the memory space involved.  I 
>>>>>>>> have yet to see a situation where there was any reason for 
>>>>>>>> storing a function address in a "void*" rather than a more 
>>>>>>>> appropriate typedef, such as :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      typedef void (*FVoid)(void);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dlsym requires that pointer-to-function is compatible with a void*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I say, I have yet to see a situation where using void* for 
>>>>>> function pointers was more appropriate than using a function 
>>>>>> pointer type.  If the OS system calls or standard OS libraries 
>>>>>> makes it a requirement that function pointers are converted to or 
>>>>>> from void* for some calls, then of course you need to follow those 
>>>>>> requirements - it's the people who designed the interfaces that 
>>>>>> made questionable design choices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, you're wrong.  You're dead wrong.  The world isn't built on C,
>>>>> even though here in comp.lang.c we like to pretend it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several language environments allow function generation on the fly,
>>>>> these functions need to be garbage collected.  Common Lisp is an
>>>>> example, therefore comp.lang.lisp is added to this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've also added comp.theory so Mild Shock can comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to go out of your way to make a computer architecture
>>>>> incompatible with garbage collected and heap allocated binary code,
>>>>> something I've been told SBCL does internally [1] to create an archi-
>>>>> tecture that has different
>>>>>
>>>>> *  sizeof ( void * ), and
>>>>> *  sizeof ( void (*)( void ) ),
>>>>>
>>>>> and when you do that, I'll just claim you're making a /malicious
>>>>> computer architecture/ and refuse to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] I've not looked at the code, but told the garbage collector can
>>>>> and will at least move the code around, if not collect it.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.lisp

csiph-web