Velocity Reviews > Good Books to learn low-level C

# Good Books to learn low-level C

Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
CBFalconer wrote:
> [...] Memory and binary
> numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the

(Somewhere I once saw a snippet of somebody's scheme
for naming the natural numbers in base two. All I can
recall is that the sequence began "one, twin," and that
eight may have been "twosand." Can anyone recall seeing
this piece of whimsy?)

--
Eric Sosman
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)lid

CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
Eric Sosman wrote:
>
> CBFalconer wrote:
> > [...] Memory and binary
> > numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the

>

I hope you didn't have to wait for grade 10 to learn "7 x 8 = 56".
Although with the prevalence of calculators in grade school it
seems the kids never learn the fundamentals. One can amaze them by

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the

Guillaume
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
Hi,

sort of funny that many questions here actually have to be answered
by "you're not asking the right question".

Chris Croughton
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:59:34 GMT, CBFalconer
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Eric Sosman wrote:
>>
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>> > [...] Memory and binary
>> > numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the

>>

>
> I hope you didn't have to wait for grade 10 to learn "7 x 8 = 56".

"There are 10 sorts of people -- those who understand binary and those
who don't..."

> Although with the prevalence of calculators in grade school it
> seems the kids never learn the fundamentals. One can amaze them by

I don't think I ever did learn 7 x 8 by memorising, by the time we got
to the 7 times table I'd worked out that

(a) 7 x 8 == 8 x 7
(b) 8 x 7 == 10 x 7 - 2 x 7

so 70 - 14 == 56 is easier. For me...

(I had no idea that the 'rules' I'd discovered had names like
commutative and associative, and no one had told me that the sequence 2,
4, 8, 16... was "powers of two", I'd just observed them empirically.
commutativity obvious, Lego bricks made associativity amost as
obvious...)

Chris C

Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005

CBFalconer wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>>CBFalconer wrote:
>>
>>>[...] Memory and binary
>>>numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the

>>

>
>
> I hope you didn't have to wait for grade 10 to learn "7 x 8 = 56".
> Although with the prevalence of calculators in grade school it
> seems the kids never learn the fundamentals. One can amaze them by

When I was in elementary school, I don't think we
learned multiplication and division until grade 11 or
perhaps 100. Algebra and rudimentary geometry showed
(except they put me on an accelerated program so I did
the 1010 material in the summer after 1001 and started
trigonometry in 1010 instead of waiting until 1011).

--
(E-Mail Removed)

Randy Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...
> Eric Sosman wrote:
> >
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> > > [...] Memory and binary
> > > numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the

> >
> > ITYM "grade 10" ...

>
> I hope you didn't have to wait for grade 10 to learn "7 x 8 = 56".
> Although with the prevalence of calculators in grade school it
> seems the kids never learn the fundamentals. One can amaze them by

Did you hear a loud whooshing sound as you posted that?

--
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig

CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
Eric Sosman wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Eric Sosman wrote:
>>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>>
>>>> [...] Memory and binary
>>>> numbers are pretty fundamental. Something like memorizing the
>>>

>>
>> I hope you didn't have to wait for grade 10 to learn "7 x 8 = 56".
>> Although with the prevalence of calculators in grade school it
>> seems the kids never learn the fundamentals. One can amaze them by

>
> When I was in elementary school, I don't think we
> learned multiplication and division until grade 11 or
> perhaps 100. Algebra and rudimentary geometry showed
> (except they put me on an accelerated program so I did
> the 1010 material in the summer after 1001 and started
> trigonometry in 1010 instead of waiting until 1011).
> Calculus wasn't until grade 1100.

Oh very well. Every group has its troublemakers.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the

Zephryn Xirdal
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-08-2005
It's very dificult to find tech. lit. about that. Low level programming with
C is a very closed kind of work, and sometimes you've to fight with strange
non-standard C compilers made only for the processor in question.

You've to learn some (sometimes a lot) about hardware, that is phisical
signals like chip select, write enable, CAS, RAS, etc.

But at end, it's not quite different from normal programming in C. You have
to know the underlayer hardware, and study electrical schematic of the

You can begin studying a simple processor and buy an evaluation board, like
INTEL 8051, or you can launch yourself and be a man and buy something like a
ColdFire eval board (motorola's med-high processor).

--
No la encontraréis nunca sin que replique, a menos que le falte la lengua:
LA MUJER.
-- W. Shakespeare --
"Ramzy Darwish" <(E-Mail Removed)> escribió en el mensaje
news:Y3%4e.23099\$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
> I have a Bachelors in CS and a Masters in Comp. Graphics. In all of my
> schoolwork, I used C and C++ and thought that I had a pretty good
> understanding of the language(s). But now, as I really am trying to find
> work as a C/C++ programmer, I am having trouble on programming interview
> tests when they start asking about low-level C stuff dealing with memory
> and binary numbers. Recently, I took a test for a SE position at Intel,
> which I of course was very excited about, but I am pretty sure I bombed
> the test as I didn't really know a lot of what they were asking and
> staying up all night scouring the internet did not produce satisfying
> results (i.e. I didn't get the job). I was able to come up with answers,
> but I don't think they were correct as they will not respond to me (not
> even to say I failed).
>
> What I want to know is how all of you out there learned the tricks that I
> see you propose to questions dealing with C on a binary number level, or
> actually using facts about the memory address of some data stored in
> memory.
>
> I just ordered "Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective" and
> "Illustrating C".
> Of course I have K&R and Stroustrup, but they don't really go into this
> type of stuff in detail (and I didn't expect them to).
>
> Do you just have to learn it along the way like a lot of the PERL tricks?
> Are there any books that teach you this stuff? Websites? Any help is
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> ramzy
>
>

Abhinav
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-09-2005
A book which comes to mind is
Expert C Programming (1 edition)
Author: Peter van der Linden
If you are in the US you can use campusi.com to find the cheapest
available copy. No I dont work for that website nor do I have that book
to sell.

Zephryn Xirdal
Guest
Posts: n/a

 04-09-2005
Thx. I don't know that book.

Other thing to learn how to program hardware is understand the Linux kernel,
at least the most low level layer.

--
No la encontraréis nunca sin que replique, a menos que le falte la lengua:
LA MUJER.
-- W. Shakespeare --
"Abhinav" <(E-Mail Removed)> escribió en el mensaje
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>A book which comes to mind is
> Expert C Programming (1 edition)
> Author: Peter van der Linden
> If you are in the US you can use campusi.com to find the cheapest
> available copy. No I dont work for that website nor do I have that book
> to sell.
>