Re: va_start without the first argument?

From	jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: va_start without the first argument?
Date	2017-03-13 01:11 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<oa4nui$q3e$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <oa42ej$dms$1@dont-email.me> <oa49f0$79d$1@dont-email.me> <oa4csk$jd4$1@dont-email.me> <oa4f3e$r2v$1@dont-email.me> <7fda2e02-9a6a-411f-9d91-1ad9030ec778@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Le 12/03/2017 à 23:51, supercat@casperkitty.com a écrit :
> Writing unnecessary code and hoping a compiler will eliminate it
> doesn't seem like a very robust approach, compared with writing code which
> only does what's actually necssary.

Like anything, engineering is about compromises. In principle you are 
right, the machine should do only what is necessary.

Now comes the programming language. It may take a runtime cost, for 
instance, instead of using the input data at the actual locations they 
are, input data is copied into temporary storage, passing it by value. 
We ensure then, that the called procedure can't change the original data.

This run tilme cost of the programming language can be eliminated when 
you write directly the processor instructions. When you call procedure 
A, that procedure knows by construction where the arguments are and no 
copy is done. You spare a few cycles.

But there are limits of course. The more of this linkage between 
procedures is done, the more the code becomes tangled and unmodifiable. 
High level languages like C accept the run time cost to easy the 
programming for humans. Humans make mistakes and the bigger the exposure 
of a programmer (or a team) to direct assembly language with all the 
tricks ON, produces code that is relatively fast but unmaintenable.

OK. Programming languages easy the effort to input machine instructions. 
You program in PHP and deal with high level objects, etc. The machine 
itself compiles or interprets C or PHP or whatever, and expands the set 
of actions described in the language into actual machine actions that 
are executed.

This way an addition of two numbers can take more than 1 cycle (what 
actually should take in any modern processor) but thousands of 
instructions to lookup for overloaded additions, or the class hierarchy 
for those two numbers or whatever.

And in many applications those thousand of instructions do not take 
almost any time (some micro-seconds maybe) and is perfectly acceptable.

Everything depends on the actual usage of the code, and the human effort 
done to realize the set of instructions that somebody has decided the 
machine should do.

Here is the center of the problem. Is each operation necessary? Couldn't 
another algorithm speed up the processing? Are those convoluted class 
hierarchies really necessary? Couldn't we simplify a bit?

I think many people have lost the motivation for doing minimal programs 
since machines have become so powerful. Who cares?

We have enough RAM and CPU.

But there are hidden costs that everyone pays for doing bloated 
software, that is also unmaintainable because of its sheer size!

Simplifying is not a luxury, it is necessary. In this time when everyone 
is going in the wrong direction it would be better to stop and reflect 
if all that complexity is really necessary.

For instance Thiago wanted a new syntax for lambdas recently. I objected 
that the new syntax complexifies C and doesn't really bring something 
imperatively new. You can do function pointer calls in C, and all 
computers I have used had a call instruction where the address of the 
call is in a register.

Can you write a data base server in assembly?

Yes, if you want. It would run very fast but it would cost a huge amount 
of effort to write.

Compiled languages have the advantage that they pre-process the 
language, generating an executable that has already all calculations 
needed at run time by the language resolved (addresses, temporaries, 
etc). Interpreted languages must pay that when they do the interpretation.

But conceptual abstractions, like parameter passing, cost cpu time, that 
is a fact. And many people pay that time since they program in C and not 
in assembly directly.

But then C++ adds some trillions of complexity into the mix. It is still 
a compiled language but there are already several problems:

1) Exception handling. A run time interpreter is generated, that will 
walk the stack frames executing destructors if there is an exception.

Well, here the performance is not important since it is an exception, so 
that path is not taken very often.

Or is it?

If you start programming using that too often you will end up with a 
slow program.

2)
Another problem for C++ is the hidden constructors/destructors calls 
when building temporary objects, what sometimes could mean unnecessary 
heap usage. That has been reduced by the heroic efforts of the 
optimizing compilers, that everyone takes for granted. C++ has sometimes 
a good speed because a huge and complex machinery has been built, to 
deduce when the code could be optimized by proving that the action 
specified by the language is unnecessary.

3) Code bloat.
Another problem with C++ is the "inline" statement. This tends to bloat 
the generated code in a big way, saving the effort of constructing a 
stack frame and making a function call, but at the cost of swamping the 
code caches and slowing down the CPU to read more code from memory. 
Templates add their contribution to code bloat also. Templates allow the 
easy generation of specialized functions but they replicate code also, 
making that approach resposible for a LOT of code duplication. Could 
they be replaced by simpler stuff like passing a code for the argument 
type and specifying as templates a small subset of the generated function?

Note that the code duplication makes it possible to write a single piece 
of code for very different types, what simplifies maintenance.

Everything in engineering is a compromise.

Thread

va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 11:57 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 12:04 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-10 12:32 -0800
    Re: va_start without the first argument? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 15:51 -0500
    Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:36 -0800
      Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:53 -0800
        Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 17:14 -0600
          Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 15:37 -0800
            Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-10 23:12 -0600
              Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:29 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:31 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-13 18:40 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:31 -0700
            Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 19:53 +0100
              Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-11 19:05 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-11 11:56 -0800
              Re: va_start without the first argument? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 05:41 +0000
              Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 13:52 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 14:40 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 18:13 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 18:04 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 21:04 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-12 21:02 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-12 22:40 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-12 15:51 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-03-12 16:52 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 00:56 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-13 09:17 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 17:54 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 22:12 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 22:48 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:46 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-14 13:37 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 15:24 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 08:25 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 17:02 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 09:45 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 09:15 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 10:02 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2017-03-14 20:32 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-14 07:44 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:38 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 08:57 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-13 11:21 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-13 18:33 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-13 22:08 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-13 15:23 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 13:58 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 09:18 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 16:52 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-14 11:34 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 18:54 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 13:30 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-15 21:55 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-15 15:16 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-03-23 21:04 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-14 21:48 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 14:01 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-14 07:42 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-14 12:38 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-13 01:11 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-13 15:43 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 10:36 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 07:33 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 19:00 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 08:05 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-13 23:10 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-14 17:38 +1300
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 05:48 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:12 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-12 19:39 +0100
  Re: va_start without the first argument? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2017-03-10 20:49 +0000
    Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 14:41 -0800
      Re: va_start without the first argument? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-10 16:05 -0800
        Re: va_start without the first argument? jacob navia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 21:47 +0100
          Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-11 13:07 -0800
            Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 22:24 +0100
              Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:44 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 08:59 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 06:17 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 13:27 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-13 13:30 -0400
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:00 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 10:34 -0700
          Re: va_start without the first argument? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-03-12 06:00 +0000
          Re: va_start without the first argument? gordonb.gas5o@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2017-03-17 09:46 -0500
            Re: va_start without the first argument? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-17 09:07 -0700
        Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:39 -0700
          Re: va_start without the first argument? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 11:40 -0700
            Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 12:01 -0700
              Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-13 23:17 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 16:15 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 00:26 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? kikiins@gmail.com - 2017-03-13 16:51 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 01:12 +0100
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 18:24 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 18:57 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-14 07:59 +0000
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-14 06:45 -0700
                Re: va_start without the first argument? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-13 18:20 -0500
                Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-14 00:31 +0100
    Re: va_start without the first argument? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-13 16:51 +0000
  Re: va_start without the first argument? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-03-11 19:29 +0100
  Re: va_start without the first argument? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-11 12:12 -0800
  Re: va_start without the first argument? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-13 05:37 -0700
    Re: va_start without the first argument? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 11:45 -0700
      Re: va_start without the first argument? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-03-15 13:39 -0700

csiph-web