Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #7428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-28 08:43 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-03-04 11:35 +0100 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 36 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads
Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 08:43 -0800
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 18:44 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 19:26 -0600
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C rthiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-02-28 20:29 -0500
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-02-28 20:23 -0600
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-03-01 11:34 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 14:31 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-03-01 17:25 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 18:13 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-03-01 19:42 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 19:56 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-03-03 21:41 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-01 15:14 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2022-03-01 01:37 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-03-01 05:11 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 08:31 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-03-01 22:45 -0600
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 05:46 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-03-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C rthiebaud <thiebauddick2@aol.com> - 2022-03-02 13:06 -0500
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-03-02 19:19 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 19:32 -0600
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2022-03-03 14:56 +1100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 14:02 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-03-03 15:09 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 15:14 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 19:17 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-02 14:42 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 19:18 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-03-02 18:33 +0000
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-03-02 11:05 -0800
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 12:25 -0800
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:37 +0100
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:35 +0100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 19:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svofvi$kbb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7471 |
On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>
>> * Whole-program compilers
>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>> * Super-fast compilers ...
> Who says
> C is stuck is 32 bits?
It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a given
platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
to explicity state that everywhere, because:
12345 is int32
'A' is int32
short a,b,c;
a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
%d means int32 format
sprintf returns int32
f(){} defaults to int32 return type
int64_t a,b;
a && b is int32
!a is int32
enum E {a=5000000000};
enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
etc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 19:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <svp5qm$ls3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7477 |
On 3/2/2022 1:19 PM, Bart wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>
>>> * Whole-program compilers
>>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>>> * Super-fast compilers ...
>> Who says
>> C is stuck is 32 bits?
>
> It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
> generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a given
> platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
>
> So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
> to explicity state that everywhere, because:
>
> 12345 is int32
> 'A' is int32
> short a,b,c;
> a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
> %d means int32 format
> sprintf returns int32
> f(){} defaults to int32 return type
> int64_t a,b;
> a && b is int32
> !a is int32
> enum E {a=5000000000};
> enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
>
> etc
Well, that is a bummer. That means that I will have to explicitly type
everything int64 when we move to Win64.
I already knew that I was going to have to change all the integer types
in my Fortran code integer*8 but I expected 64 bit C to treat int at 64 bit.
Lynn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 14:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fsq5fi-0hh.ln1@paranoia.mcleod-schmidt.id.au> |
| In reply to | #7481 |
On 03/03/2022 12:32, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 1:19 PM, Bart wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>> * Whole-program compilers
>>>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>>>> * Super-fast compilers ...
>>> Who says
>>> C is stuck is 32 bits?
>>
>> It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
>> generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a
>> given platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
>>
>> So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
>> to explicity state that everywhere, because:
>>
>> 12345 is int32
>> 'A' is int32
>> short a,b,c;
>> a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
>> %d means int32 format
>> sprintf returns int32
>> f(){} defaults to int32 return type
>> int64_t a,b;
>> a && b is int32
>> !a is int32
>> enum E {a=5000000000};
>> enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
>>
>> etc
>
> Well, that is a bummer. That means that I will have to explicitly type
> everything int64 when we move to Win64.
>
> I already knew that I was going to have to change all the integer types
> in my Fortran code integer*8 but I expected 64 bit C to treat int at 64
> bit.
On 64-bit Linux, the default gcc instance builds 64-bit binaries, using
the I32LP64 model.
The Alpha was nice, it's default was ILP64.
Winderrs is worse, it use IL32P64, I'll leave dealing with the
assumptions C programmers have made over the decades to your imagination.
I've been using my own set of typedefs to control things since the early
1990's, and being hard on myself and occasional minions about not using
"int" anywhere. Edit one header file and everything is as big/small as
you need/want. :-)
Cheers,
Gary B-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 14:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svqe8o$5nl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7481 |
Am 03.03.2022 um 02:32 schrieb Lynn McGuire:
> On 3/2/2022 1:19 PM, Bart wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>> * Whole-program compilers
>>>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>>>> * Super-fast compilers ...
>>> Who says
>>> C is stuck is 32 bits?
>>
>> It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
>> generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a
>> given platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
>>
>> So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
>> to explicity state that everywhere, because:
>>
>> 12345 is int32
>> 'A' is int32
>> short a,b,c;
>> a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
>> %d means int32 format
>> sprintf returns int32
>> f(){} defaults to int32 return type
>> int64_t a,b;
>> a && b is int32
>> !a is int32
>> enum E {a=5000000000};
>> enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
>>
>> etc
>
> Well, that is a bummer. That means that I will have to explicitly type
> everything int64 when we move to Win64.
If you need a scalar type that always matches the with of
the general purpose integer-registers use size_t or ptrdiff_t.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manfred <noname@add.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 15:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svqi6n$1ccc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7477 |
On 3/2/2022 8:19 PM, Bart wrote:
> On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>
>>> * Whole-program compilers
>>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>>> * Super-fast compilers ...
>> Who says
>> C is stuck is 32 bits?
>
> It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
> generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a given
> platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
>
> So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
> to explicity state that everywhere, because:
>
> 12345 is int32
> 'A' is int32
> short a,b,c;
> a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
> %d means int32 format
> sprintf returns int32
> f(){} defaults to int32 return type
> int64_t a,b;
> a && b is int32
> !a is int32
> enum E {a=5000000000};
> enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
>
> etc
Are you seriously suggesting that the default size of int should be 64
bits everywhere?
Even for a general purpose counter from 1 to 10?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 15:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svqifq$97v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7484 |
Am 03.03.2022 um 15:09 schrieb Manfred:
> On 3/2/2022 8:19 PM, Bart wrote:
>> On 02/03/2022 18:06, rthiebaud wrote:
>>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>>
>>>> * Whole-program compilers
>>>> * 64-bit everything (C is still stuck on 32-bits)
>>>> * Super-fast compilers ...
>>> Who says
>>> C is stuck is 32 bits?
>>
>> It just is. While versions with 64-bit ints might be knocking about,
>> generally they have to be compatible with what C already does on a
>> given platform. And that usually means int = 32 bits.
>>
>> So, while people can choose to use long long int or int64_t, they have
>> to explicity state that everywhere, because:
>>
>> 12345 is int32
>> 'A' is int32
>> short a,b,c;
>> a*b*c is int32 (so could overflow)
>> %d means int32 format
>> sprintf returns int32
>> f(){} defaults to int32 return type
>> int64_t a,b;
>> a && b is int32
>> !a is int32
>> enum E {a=5000000000};
>> enum E xx; is int32 (int64 on some compilers with extensions)
>>
>> etc
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that the default size of int should be 64
> bits everywhere?
> Even for a general purpose counter from 1 to 10?
Even if an int is only 32 bit that's too much. ^^
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 19:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svocba$is5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7466 |
Am 02.03.2022 um 14:47 schrieb Bart: > On 02/03/2022 04:46, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>> >>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. >>>>> Now, Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 >>>>> standard. >>>>> >>>>> Read more here: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>> >>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>> >>> What is your definition of a modern language ? >> >> OOP, RAII, generic programming, functional programming, >> proper error-handling like with exceptions. > > They all sound like things designed to make coding harder and less > accessible. No, it's the opposite. They make code much more readable and you're a magnitude more productive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bnLTJ.29022$aT3.9637@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #7465 |
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> >>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>> >>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>> >>>> Read more here: >>>> >>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>> >>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >> >> What is your definition of a modern language ? > >OOP, Simula, 1967. >RAII, ADA, 1980. > generic programming, ML, 1973. >functional programming, Lisp, 1970's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 19:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svocct$is5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7467 |
Am 02.03.2022 um 15:42 schrieb Scott Lurndal: > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>> >>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>>> >>>>> Read more here: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>> >>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>> >>> What is your definition of a modern language ? >> >> OOP, > > Simula, 1967. > > >> RAII, > > ADA, 1980. > >> generic programming, > > ML, 1973. > >> functional programming, > > Lisp, 1970's. We're talking about C++ vs. C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kMOTJ.47117$m1S7.30500@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #7473 |
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >Am 02.03.2022 um 15:42 schrieb Scott Lurndal: >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>>> >>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Read more here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>>> >>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>>> >>>> What is your definition of a modern language ? >>> >>> OOP, >> >> Simula, 1967. >> >> >>> RAII, >> >> ADA, 1980. >> >>> generic programming, >> >> ML, 1973. >> >>> functional programming, >> >> Lisp, 1970's. > We're talking about C++ vs. C. Lesen sie besser. "What is your definition of a modern language"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 19:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svodkd$t2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7474 |
Am 02.03.2022 um 19:33 schrieb Scott Lurndal: > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >> Am 02.03.2022 um 15:42 schrieb Scott Lurndal: >>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >>>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>>>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read more here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>>>> >>>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>>>> >>>>> What is your definition of a modern language ? >>>> >>>> OOP, >>> >>> Simula, 1967. >>> >>> >>>> RAII, >>> >>> ADA, 1980. >>> >>>> generic programming, >>> >>> ML, 1973. >>> >>>> functional programming, >>> >>> Lisp, 1970's. > >> We're talking about C++ vs. C. > > Lesen sie besser. > > "What is your definition of a modern language" >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. > What is your definition of a modern language ? That's C++ vs. C. And it doesn't matter who came first. C++ is the only language which combines nearly all of that features with the least possible overhead (except thrown exceptions, but that's not significant for the code).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-02 11:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <svof6k$cfi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7475 |
On 3/2/2022 10:39 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 02.03.2022 um 19:33 schrieb Scott Lurndal: >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >>> Am 02.03.2022 um 15:42 schrieb Scott Lurndal: >>>> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> Am 02.03.2022 um 05:45 schrieb Lynn McGuire: >>>>>> On 2/28/2022 11:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. >>>>>>>> Now, >>>>>>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read more here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your definition of a modern language ? >>>>> >>>>> OOP, >>>> >>>> Simula, 1967. >>>> >>>> >>>>> RAII, >>>> >>>> ADA, 1980. >>>> >>>>> generic programming, >>>> >>>> ML, 1973. >>>> >>>>> functional programming, >>>> >>>> Lisp, 1970's. >> >>> We're talking about C++ vs. C. >> >> Lesen sie besser. >> >> "What is your definition of a modern language" > > > > >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. > > > What is your definition of a modern language ? > > That's C++ vs. C. Agreed. C++ is more "modern" than C for sure. > And it doesn't matter who came first. C++ is the only language > which combines nearly all of that features with the least possible > overhead (except thrown exceptions, but that's not significant for > the code).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 12:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <svr87u$76l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7431 |
On 2/28/2022 9:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >> Hello, >> >> >> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >> >> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >> >> Read more here: >> >> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> Amine Moulay Ramdane. > > C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. Moving Linux to Standard C11 has to involve a lot of porting over to the std atomics and membars in C11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 21:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svr8u1$d5m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7488 |
Am 03.03.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 2/28/2022 9:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>> >>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>> >>> Read more here: >>> >>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >> >> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. > > Moving Linux to Standard C11 has to involve a lot of porting over to the > std atomics and membars in C11. The code needs not to be portable beyond gcc and clang.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-03 12:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <svra78$no8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7490 |
On 3/3/2022 12:37 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 03.03.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 2/28/2022 9:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> >>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>> >>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. Now, >>>> Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 standard. >>>> >>>> Read more here: >>>> >>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>> >>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >> >> Moving Linux to Standard C11 has to involve a lot of porting over to >> the std atomics and membars in C11. > > The code needs not to be portable beyond gcc and clang. Well, I was thinking if they altered their existing atomics and membars to 100% pure C11, that would be a shit load of work. I can do it, but it would take a very long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 11:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <svsq1b$523$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7491 |
Am 03.03.2022 um 21:59 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > On 3/3/2022 12:37 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 03.03.2022 um 21:25 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >>> On 2/28/2022 9:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 28.02.2022 um 17:43 schrieb Amine Moulay Ramdane: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Linus Torvalds prepares to move the Linux kernel to modern C >>>>> >>>>> The Linux kernel's foundation is the ancient C89 standard of C. >>>>> Now, Torvalds has decided to upgrade to 2011's more modern C11 >>>>> standard. >>>>> >>>>> Read more here: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-prepares-to-move-the-linux-kernel-to-modern-c/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1oF1ysACG28YRYJnnYlt7oCzfRhXSUePOKd4xsycb3F8GGwxIfeAXZI8Y >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Amine Moulay Ramdane. >>>> >>>> C isn't a modern language, no matter which standard. >>> >>> Moving Linux to Standard C11 has to involve a lot of porting over to >>> the std atomics and membars in C11. >> >> The code needs not to be portable beyond gcc and clang. > > Well, I was thinking if they altered their existing atomics and membars > to 100% pure C11, that would be a shit load of work. I can do it, but it > would take a very long time. The code needs not to be portable beyond gcc and clang.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads
csiph-web