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?

 
 
Kenny McCormack
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
....
>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.


I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
dirty, world, but always entertaining), while something like "clc.esoteric"
or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing the totally
useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.

The point is that the name means something. People come here to discuss
real world C (imagine that - coming to a newsgroup named "comp.lang.c" to
discuss real world C) and are gobsmacked when they find out that the
natural obvious newsgroup name has been hijacked by a bunch of religious
loonies.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Randy Howard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[...]
> 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.


That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
sometimes across multiple sites. But this kind of thing is already
discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
comp.distributed.

Since the mechanisms for doing this aren't part of the C language (for
example, you can use MPI from C, from Fortran, and probably from other
languages), it doesn't usually make much sense to discuss them in
comp.lang.c.

If parallism were ever added to the C language, of course it would
become topical in comp.lang.c. If you want to help make that happen,
comp.std.c might be a good place to start. I suspect the response
will be that it's unnecessary, since the add-on libraries already
exist, but you'rew welcome to try. (That's a generic "you", not
directed at anyone in particular.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
On 2005-11-20, Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
> defintion. Its just not written down.


Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
written down, it has never been subject to a vote.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Kenny McCormack said:

> I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
> a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
> dirty, world, but always entertaining),


Right. And in the real world, C is quite often selected because of its
astonishingly high level of portability.

> while something like
> "clc.esoteric" or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing
> the totally useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.


Totally useless it may be, but it pays the mortgage for a very large number
of people.

> The point is that the name means something.


Indeed it does:

comp -> computing
lang -> language
c -> C

Nothing in there about MIPS, Windows, Linux, threads, sockets, or all the
rest of it. Just C.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Randy Howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Keith Thompson wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> Randy Howard <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> [...]
>> 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.

>
> That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
> most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
> hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
> sometimes across multiple sites.


Of course, fair point. I was thinking of fork() and friends
when I wrote that, and completely forgot to mention parallel in
the sense you did. Probably because I have spent a lot of time
writing pthread code in recent years, and almost zero time
writing MPI code.

> But this kind of thing is already
> discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
> comp.distributed.


Indeed.


--
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
 
Rouben Rostamian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jordan Abel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 2005-11-20, Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
>> defintion. Its just not written down.

>
>Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
>that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
>written down, it has never been subject to a vote.


CLC is an excellent resource but in my opinion it can benefit
from a name change -- something like comp.lang.c.iso will
reflect better its purpose and help reduce the incessant
discussions of topicality and lynching of newbies.

To address your question of how the current rules were
developed, the following allegory explains it very well.
I don't mean it in the way of disrespect to any readers
of this group. I don't remember where I got it; it's
not /my/ translation.

--
Rouben Rostamian

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "De banaan wordt bespreekbaar", cultuurverandering in
ambtelijk en politiek Groningen. door Tom Pauka en
Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh en van Ditmar, 198

Translated: "The banana becomes open to discussion", cultural changes
in administrative and political Groningen (city in Netherlands) by
Tom Pauka and Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh and van Ditmar, 198]

Take a cage with apes. In the cage we hang a banana on a string,
and put stairs under it. Before long an ape goes to the stairs
towards the banana, but as soon as it even touches the stairs,
all apes are sprayed with water. After a while the same ape or
another one makes another attempt, with the same result: all
apes are sprayed. If later another ape tries to climb the
stairs, the others will try to prevent it.

Now we take one ape from the cage and put in a new one. The new
ape sees the banana, and wants to climb the stairs. To his
horror all other apes attack him. After another attempt he
knows: if he wants to climb the stairs, he is beaten up. Then we
remove a second ape and replace it by another new one. The
newcomer goes to the stairs and gets beaten up. The previous
new ape takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

A third old ape is replaced by a third new one. The new one
makes it to the stairs and get beaten up as well. Two of the
apes who beat him, have no idea why you may not climb the stairs.

We replace the fourth old ape, and the fifth, etc. until all
apes which have been sprayed with water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever tries to climb the stairs.

"But Sir, why not?"

"Because that's the way we do things here, lad."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Nilsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Jordan Abel wrote:
> ...
> My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
discus
non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to gain
another one of
those groups?

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
On 2005-11-21, Peter Nilsson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>> ...
>> My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.

>
> Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
> discus non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to
> gain another one of those groups?


A group for general C discussion. If you want a group for talking about
ISO C only, why not make groups comp.lang.c.iso90 comp.lang.c.iso99?

This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject to
a vote. From what does its authority derive?
 
Reply With Quote
 
pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
Jordan Abel wrote:

> This newsgroup's charter is not in writing
> and has never been subject to
> a vote. From what does its authority derive?


Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.

--
pete
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jordan Abel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2005
On 2005-11-21, pete <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Jordan Abel wrote:
>
>> This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject
>> to a vote. From what does its authority derive?

>
> Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.


Mob rule requires a vote.
 
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