Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #82645
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? |
| Date | 2021-12-14 15:23 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <spb91s$oo9$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <sp7uvp$spv$3@dont-email.me> <sp9hbr$gbc$2@dont-email.me> <sp9jn4$umd$1@dont-email.me> <sp9qh6$460$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87r1afyxhh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
On 12/14/2021 8:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> Every language that allows recursions has a stack.
>>>> And both C and C++ allow recursions.
>>>
>>> As so often happens, your views are coloured by your "all the world is
>>> an x86 running Windows" experience.
>>>
>>> Certainly stacks are the usual way to implement such languages.
>>
>> I think in this context a distinction should be made between the concept
>> of a "stack" in the algorithm / computer science sense, and a "stack" in
>> the sense of a particular implementation of one.
>
> Yes, these are too often confused, which does not help the discussion.
>
>> In the computer science sense a "stack" is pretty much a synonym for
>> "a LIFO data container". However, how exactly that LIFO container is
>> implemented is not set in stone.
>>
>> Recursion does indeed require a stack by necessity.
>
> In the most general cases, yes, but some languages actually specify that
> certain recursive calls will not use a new data frame. (The point being
> that recursion does not always require a stack.)
>
Fwiw, when I write something that's recursive, I always end up thinking
about how to create an iterative version of it. Here is the iterative
version of a recursive fractal I created a while back:
https://pastebin.com/raw/0B7rNx9Z
______________________
// Fractal Parametric Wave Plotter
void ct_fwave_mpara(
ct::plot2d& plot,
unsigned int n,
ct_complex p0,
ct_complex p1,
unsigned int nr
) {
ct_complex dif = p1 - p0;
// Build the Fractal wave
ct_float abase = 1.0 / n;
ct_float abase_wave = CT_PI * 1 / n;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
ct_float angle = abase * i;
ct_float angle_wave = abase_wave * i * nr;
ct_float y_temp = abs(sin(angle_wave)) * 1.0 / nr + (p0.imag()
+ (dif.imag() * angle));
// Fractal Wave High
ct_complex wp0 = {
p0.real() + (dif.real() * angle),
y_temp
};
// Fractal Wave Low
ct_complex wp1 = {
p0.real() + (dif.real() * angle),
-y_temp
};
plot.set_pixelf(wp0, CT_RGBF(1., 1., 0.));
plot.set_pixelf(wp1, CT_RGBF(0., 1., 1.));
}
}
// Fractal Parametric Wave Function
void ct_fwave(
ct::plot2d& plot,
unsigned int n,
ct_complex p0,
ct_complex p1,
unsigned int nr
) {
// For every level
for (unsigned int recur_i = 0; recur_i < n; ++recur_i)
{
// Plot the wave
ct_fwave_mpara(plot, 3072, p0, p1, nr);
// Compute next wave
nr = nr * (recur_i + 2);
}
}
______________________
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-12 00:42 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-12 09:52 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2021-12-12 12:59 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-13 01:51 +0200
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-12-13 05:48 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2021-12-13 10:44 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 04:44 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-13 07:47 -0500
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:32 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-14 07:49 -0500
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-14 14:23 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 16:16 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 12:13 -0500
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-13 12:05 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 17:11 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-13 19:00 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-13 23:03 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 08:33 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-14 09:13 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2021-12-14 10:09 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-14 16:14 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 15:23 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-14 16:10 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 17:38 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-14 17:09 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 18:39 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 11:01 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 10:52 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-14 20:15 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-14 07:59 -0500
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 16:19 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-14 11:33 -0500
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-13 17:23 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2021-12-15 23:27 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-16 08:37 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 14:16 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:07 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 05:53 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 08:34 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 12:17 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 13:38 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-16 14:15 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 20:10 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-16 14:14 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 20:20 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-17 08:46 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2021-12-14 10:32 +0200
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 07:42 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-12-17 01:07 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-17 01:28 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-16 19:54 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2021-12-17 10:06 +0000
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-13 17:08 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 13:50 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-14 16:32 +0100
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-13 13:13 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:55 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-13 15:58 -0800
Re: Has "stack overflow" specified behavior? wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-12-14 01:41 -0800
csiph-web