Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C |
| Date | 2011-09-27 10:06 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnhb3x29ur.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <j5o09d$eul$1@dont-email.me> <j5o0vd$jqr$1@dont-email.me> <j5piu0$ugu$1@dont-email.me> <lny5xb15ao.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <87ty7yvq8h.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>> Expressions of type char are promoted to int in most contexts. If plain
>> char is signed, this promotion can be done with a sign extension, which
>> is typically quite cheap. If plain char is unsigned, it might be more
>> expensive. (I don't have more specific information, but it's what I was
>> told when I asked a similar question some time ago.)
>
> I suspect those architectures may well live only in Bernsteinian la-la
> land. Quite why the other 100% of the world should care one flying
> ferret about expensiveness of operations on such architectures, I'm
> not entirely sure. (And I say that as someone who has not used a
> mainstream architecture as his primary machine for over a decade. (7
> happy years on alpha, 4 happy years on POWER. And most development in
> that time done for ARM.))
Ok. If anyone else has solid information on this, I'd be interested in
hearing about it.
>> I agree that making plain char unsigned would be conceptually simpler.
>
> I'm pretty sure you disagreed with me when I made that suggestion
> a while back.
Hmm. I may have disagreed that requiring plain char to be unsigned
would be a good idea for the performance reasons stated above.
I don't recall arguing that it wouldn't be *conceptually* simpler.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A very simple parser with scanf & C pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 07:03 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-23 18:28 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 18:29 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 23:16 +0200
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:09 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:32 +0200
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-23 21:24 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:00 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-24 00:04 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:34 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-24 01:00 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 02:42 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-24 12:13 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-24 12:25 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:05 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:45 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-24 17:45 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 22:21 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-25 00:52 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:54 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-25 02:51 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:22 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 01:35 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-25 08:41 -0400
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 11:23 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-25 19:41 +0300
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-25 19:45 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-25 12:10 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-25 20:43 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 15:55 -0400
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-26 11:07 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-26 11:40 -0400
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-26 12:22 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-26 21:19 +0000
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-26 16:11 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-26 23:26 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-26 12:18 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:27 +0300
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-27 10:06 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 21:10 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-30 05:18 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-30 17:06 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-25 18:05 -0400
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-25 15:30 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 14:01 -0800
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-25 11:05 -0500
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-31 16:01 -0800
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-01-31 23:47 -0500
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-08 09:21 -0800
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-03-10 15:18 -0500
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-13 15:49 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-03-14 18:56 -0500
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-15 17:37 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-03-17 00:24 -0500
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-21 05:21 -0700
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 23:23 +0200
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-23 23:53 +0100
Re: A very simple parser with scanf & C Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 14:07 +0100
csiph-web