Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

Reply
Thread Tools

what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

 
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>> On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Jordan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
>>>>charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
>>>>
>>>>The best I can find online is
>>>><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
>>>>which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
>>>>
>>>>[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
>>>>asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
>>>>is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
>>>>so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
>>>>
>>>>If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?
>>>
>>>Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

>>
>>
>> And also that of Standard C.
>>
>> Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
>> ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
>> precise.
>>
>> My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
>> about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
>> to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
>> off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
>> least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
>> on-topic for csc and not clc]
>>
>> which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
>> on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
>>
>>
>>>It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
>>>what is allowable and not allowable.

>>
>>
>> The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
>> is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
>> only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
>> decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
>> one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
>> has developed into a convention?

>
> I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.
>
> This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
> This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
> critics of the language, are on topic here.


I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Walter Roberson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jordan Abel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.


>> This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
>> This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
>> critics of the language, are on topic here.


>I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


This is a really bad time to run an RFD. The entire RFD / CFV mechanism
is undergoing a -considerable- shakeup, and no RFDs are being
accepted for now (and possibly not for quite a number of months.)

The quick summary is that the people who administer the official
mechanisms at the moment want out and have announced their firm
commitment to resign, and are pushing for a complete rework of the
structure in order to have a viable organization to hand the reigns
over to. news.groups has the discussions.
--
Many food scientists have reported chocolate to be the single most
craved food. -- Northwestern University, 2001
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:11:36 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

>
>And also that of Standard C.
>
>My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


Its an interesting question. The answer is very simple - because that
what it is. There's no better answer, over the last 2 decades it has
generally been agreed that the purpose of CLC is to discuss the use of
standard C.

>I got to thinking
>about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
>to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
>off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
>least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
>on-topic for csc and not clc]


Yes, there are sometimes things which do fall into that interesting
camp.

>The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
>is allowed, you'll always have dissent.


The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
defintion. Its just not written down.

This isn't uncommon - I mentioned the constitution of the UK earlier.
We seem to have managed ok for several hundred years.

>And is it really _right_ That
>only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
>decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
>one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
>has developed into a convention?


Why do you actually need to know? The point is, the topic /is/
defined. If you want to change it, feel free to try.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:42:50 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

>

to the best of my knowledge, Jacob is in a minority of at best one, at
worst a handful, amongst the regulars.

>I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


Not interested.

If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
decades.



--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
"Jordan Abel" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
>> This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
>> critics of the language, are on topic here.

>
> I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?
>

For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.
Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
to ever be widely implemented, which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
the language, and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
important in the near future.

Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.

However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
isn't on-topic.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark McIntyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
>point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
>isn't on-topic.


The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
or something like that. If it proves useful and informative, people
will move over to it, and CLC will die away. If it proves useless, and
uninformative people will return to CLC.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
Reply With Quote
 
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Augestad?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
>> point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
>> isn't on-topic.

>
> The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
> or something like that.


Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?

Bjørn

[snip]
 
Reply With Quote
 
pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Bjørn Augestad wrote:
>
> Mark McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >
> > The simplest solution is to create a new group
> > comp.lang.nonstandard-c
> > or something like that.

>
> Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?


I think comp.unix.programmer
would be a better name to call that one.

http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

--
pete
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
Malcolm wrote
(in article
<dlqju1$24d$(E-Mail Removed)-infra.bt.com>):

> For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.


Or ISO C 90.

> Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
> to ever be widely implemented,


That's mostly because it offers almost nothing of value to
convince people to do the work to adopt it, and it directly
conflicts with widespread extensions, most notably those of gcc,
which means it was stillborn the day it was published, whether
they realized it at the time or not.

> which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
> the language,


Forget about ANSI, it's not even in the picture anymore. Blame
the current state of affairs on ISO and lack of understanding of
how reality meets the dream of a standards group.

> and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
> important in the near future.


It already is, and has been for quite some time.

> Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
> inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
> between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.


Parallel programming today pretty much ignores passing between
processes (unless on different systems over the wire), and
focuses on data use (and sharing) within a single process and
multiple threads. C with extensions is one way this is done
commonly, however if that is your bag, then you should be
discussing it in a forum filled with people that focus on it
actively, such as those in comp.programming.threads.

There is no reason to drag a group into that sort of discussion
when a better one already exists. Just as there is no reason to
discuss high end graphics programming here when there are better
forums.

Just as monolithic design is bad in most software engineering,
it's also bad in Usenet group scope. I suspect that more often
than not this desire to lump everything into clc is due to not
wanting to read multiple newsgroups rather than some well
thought out rational reason.

> there is no
> point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
> isn't on-topic.


That much is certainly true.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw





 
Reply With Quote
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
....
>Not interested.
>
>If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
>buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
>decades.


Do you even come close to realizing how much like either a spoiled child
or, (worse) a religious fundie, you sound like?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parallel in, Parallel out shift register Vivek Menon VHDL 5 06-08-2011 03:56 PM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thought itwas a parallel language ? Andy VHDL 0 09-18-2008 01:07 PM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thoughtit was a parallel language ? backhus VHDL 0 09-18-2008 06:23 AM
Re: Why does the placement of a statement mater in vhdl, I thought itwas a parallel language ? ghelbig VHDL 0 09-18-2008 05:55 AM
Parallel port control with USB->Parallel converter Soren Python 4 02-14-2008 03:18 PM



Advertisments