Re: C is not a low level language

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	alt.windows7.general, comp.lang.c, comp.programming, alt.comp.os.windows-10
Subject	Re: C is not a low level language
Date	2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<q52sou$u5l$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <+BH$Xu6fFAdcFwF7@255soft.uk> <6ITcE.119027$G52.102800@fx39.iad> <q51269$qdi$1@dont-email.me> <WAUcE.44777$NV.18824@fx42.iad> <+tO$MQA5qCdcFwH+@255soft.uk>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 25/02/2019 18:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <WAUcE.44777$NV.18824@fx42.iad>, Wolf K
> <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> On 2019-02-25 10:38, David Brown wrote:
>> [...]
>>> There are almost no programming fields that require hand-written
>>> assembly these days.  Even if you are writing a compiler, or low-level
>>> libraries for a compiler, you are unlikely to need more than small
>>> sections or snippets of assembly.  There are still occasions where
>>> assembly will give you noticeably more efficient results than a
>>> high-level language - but very, very few where the difference is big
>>> enough to warrant using assembly.  Generally, if you think assembly is
>>> the best choice then you have picked an inappropriate processor,
>>> inappropriate tools, or an inappropriate programmer.
>>>  I think it is good for programmers to have some experience of assembly,
>>> and to have understanding of it - it helps give a better appreciation of
>>> how things work underneath, and can lead to the programmer writing
>>> better high-level code (especially on smaller systems).  But that is
>>> different from actually writing assembly for real work.
>> [...]
>>
>> Thanks for this,
>>
> +1. I'd agree that - IMO anyway - it helps for programmers to have had
> some _experience_ of assembler, to - as you say - have a better
> appreciation of how things work underneath, and write better code. But
> there are now probably few places where the extra efficiency assembler
> can yield justifies the extra cost of _using_ it. (_Knowing_ about it I
> still think should be part of any training course that involves
> programming, though.)

There are times when using some assembly code can help.  It is almost
always sufficient to use inline assembly mixed with high-level code
(typically C or C++, possibly other compiled languages).  You get the
benefits of assembly mainly when the processor has features that are not
easy to express in the main language - say, SIMD instructions.
Combining inline assembly with high-level language (using a compiler
that can support this well) is likely to give you more optimal code.

> 
> Yes, I still think assembler can produce more efficient code - but for
> all but the simplest systems, coding it requires more brain power (which
> costs money) than is justifiable in most cases: and _checking_ it is a
> really stressful activity: it requires phenomenal concentration. For any
> sizeable project, you need to have more than one coder working on it -
> and the effort they have to put into translating the inputs and outputs
> into a standard format to talk to each other arguably defeats the
> efficiency gains. If they _don't_ use standard interfaces, the
> _maintainability_ suffers, as any maintainer has to learn the details of
> the bespoke interfaces.
> 

Yes.  Obviously anything that /could/ be written in a high level
language could also be written in assembly with at least as high
efficiency on a particular target - and there are assembly tricks that
can't be practically done with compilers.  But while that is the theory,
practice is very different.  If you add some reasonable conditions - the
code should be legible, maintainable, and portable within the ISA (e.g.,
it should work for any x86-64 cpu), then it is a very different matter.
 The high level code will almost always run faster than assembly written
under these constraints.

> This applies also for FPGA type work, too (programming in e. g. VHDL or
> High-C).
> 

Yes.

> _Ideally_, the compiler - or optimiser - will remove unnecessary format
> translation stages.
> 
> The two places where ultimate efficiency matter are for very long-life,
> low-supply situations, such as space probes or similar situations, and
> _very_ mass-produced and cheap devices. And even for both of those,
> there are plenty of examples of where something went wrong - Ariane V,
> that hole in MoDem/router devices from a year or two ago - though I
> don't know in those particular cases whether it was in assembler or a
> medium-level or high-level language where the problem occurred.

Thread

Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 12:40 +0800
  Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 05:16 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:20 +0800
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 13:24 +0800
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 19:45 +0800
      Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 13:09 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:38 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:18 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 17:21 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:43 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:17 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 20:02 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 19:26 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-24 21:36 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:10 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:25 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:24 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 17:04 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:52 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 17:59 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 08:46 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:36 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 10:13 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-26 09:56 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:12 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:20 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:36 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:29 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 09:41 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:55 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:24 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:03 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:58 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-25 09:40 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 10:01 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:55 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2019-02-25 08:31 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 17:42 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:19 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-24 17:56 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-24 18:23 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:58 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 20:52 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:31 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 14:01 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 23:04 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 15:53 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:07 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 20:50 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:04 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:25 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-28 11:56 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-28 19:45 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 17:55 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-28 16:03 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 11:25 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-28 19:30 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:47 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 21:29 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-25 20:16 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 12:53 -0800
      Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 09:49 +0200
    Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:07 +0100
      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 22:59 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 09:57 +0100
          Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 09:59 +0000
  Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 19:54 +1300
    Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 07:56 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 21:58 +1300
        Re: C is not a low level language "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:57 +0100
        Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:13 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 10:47 +0000
          Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:48 -0500
            Re: C is not a low level language The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 14:42 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 07:15 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:25 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:03 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 12:10 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 17:58 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:18 +0200
            Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 10:35 +0200
              Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:44 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-02-25 12:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 14:26 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:08 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:08 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 18:00 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-27 22:37 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-28 02:25 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 12:27 +0000
              Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-25 09:36 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 15:05 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 19:20 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-25 23:02 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:41 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 12:20 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 14:01 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-26 08:48 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 19:20 +0100
              Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:04 -0500
        Re: C is not a low level language lonelydad <lonelydad58@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 14:44 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language "U-laptop\\Norah" <Norah@laptop.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> - 2019-02-27 16:16 -0600
          Re: C is not a low level language Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2019-03-01 12:12 +1300
            Re: C is not a low level language Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2019-03-01 00:19 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 19:59 -0800
        Re: C is not a low level language Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2019-02-25 16:10 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 21:02 +0100
          Re: C is not a low level language Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2019-02-26 00:37 +0100
            Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 19:09 -0500
            Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-26 06:52 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:30 -0800
      Re: C is not a low level language T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2019-02-24 00:31 -0800
      Re: C is not a low level language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2019-02-24 10:16 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 11:22 +0000
      Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 08:51 -0500
        Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 07:20 -0800
          Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-24 15:35 +0000
            Re: C is not a low level language "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2019-02-24 11:05 -0500
            Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:39 -0800
              Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-24 19:11 -0800
              Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 09:41 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 14:53 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 10:19 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-25 16:38 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-25 11:20 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 17:49 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:18 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:25 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:45 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2019-02-26 09:11 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:23 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-26 08:02 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 17:57 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 17:42 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 22:33 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-02-26 09:30 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-02-25 13:52 -0800
                Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 15:20 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:47 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:50 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-25 18:59 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-25 20:15 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-25 18:38 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:49 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:40 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2019-02-26 12:55 +0200
                Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 16:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2019-03-05 04:29 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-03-04 23:43 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 18:16 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2019-02-25 17:44 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 13:05 -0500
                Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 00:51 -0600
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 10:58 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-02-26 10:53 -0600
                Re: C is not a low level language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-02-26 17:49 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-02-26 18:11 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-02-26 18:24 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:24 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2019-02-26 19:44 +0100
                Re: C is not a low level language nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-02-26 06:33 +0000
                Re: C is not a low level language nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2019-02-25 12:17 -0500
        Re: C is not a low level language Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2019-02-24 20:03 -0800
      Re: C is not a low level language pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> - 2019-02-24 14:56 -0800
  Re: C is not a low level language Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2019-02-24 20:43 +0000
    Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 14:14 +0800
      Re: C is not a low level language "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2019-02-25 10:45 +0000
        Re: C is not a low level language "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2019-02-25 19:04 +0800

csiph-web