Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > companion processor

Reply
Thread Tools

companion processor

 
 
Uno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2010
Is there any notion of a potential "companion processor" in standard C?
I did a search for the term in n1256.pdf and got nothing.

Almost certainly it would not exist in the standard itself. The
processors that C first imagined were Randian clickers.

Along the way, it becomes very popular and finds that it needs to have
opinions on things like IEEE754. Everyone I talk to says that both C
and Fortran got this wrong, but I have yet to figure out why.

Is it maybe one of those things that was never written because everyone
(in the C community) wanted to have it be the lingua franca.

Or maybe some non-binding agreement?
--
Uno
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan Curry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Uno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Is there any notion of a potential "companion processor" in standard C?
> I did a search for the term in n1256.pdf and got nothing.


I've never heard of it before. My first guess would be that you mean
"coprocessor", as in Intel 80387 (reinforced by the later mention of
IEEE754). And the answer would be that C doesn't care about how work is
divided between chips in a machine.

>
>Almost certainly it would not exist in the standard itself. The
>processors that C first imagined were Randian clickers.
>
>Along the way, it becomes very popular and finds that it needs to have
>opinions on things like IEEE754. Everyone I talk to says that both C
>and Fortran got this wrong, but I have yet to figure out why.
>
>Is it maybe one of those things that was never written because everyone
>(in the C community) wanted to have it be the lingua franca.
>
>Or maybe some non-binding agreement?


But I really don't know how to make sense of your question. I think you'll
have to define "companion processor" for us. It may be a term that only
Fortran programmers know.

--
Alan Curry
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
On Sep 24, 6:04*pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Alan Curry) wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Uno *<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Is there any notion of a potential "companion processor" in standard C?
> > *I did a search for the term in n1256.pdf and got nothing.

>
> I've never heard of it before. My first guess would be that you mean
> "coprocessor", as in Intel 80387 (reinforced by the later mention of
> IEEE754). And the answer would be that C doesn't care about how work is
> divided between chips in a machine.
>
>
>
> >Almost certainly it would not exist in the standard itself. *The
> >processors that C first imagined were Randian clickers.

>
> >Along the way, it becomes very popular and finds that it needs to have
> >opinions on things like IEEE754. *Everyone I talk to says that both C
> >and Fortran got this wrong, but I have yet to figure out why.

>
> >Is it maybe one of those things that was never written because everyone
> >(in the C community) wanted to have it be the lingua franca.

>
> >Or maybe some non-binding agreement?

>
> But I really don't know how to make sense of your question. I think you'll
> have to define "companion processor" for us. It may be a term that only
> Fortran programmers know.
>


Yes, it is a Fortran only term. A Fortran processor is anything
that can translate the Fortran language into some that gets an
answer. Most people associate a Fortran processor with a Fortran
compiler. Fortran has a feature known as the ISO C BINDING, which
as the name suggests tries to define an inter-language interface
between Fortran and ISO C. In the Fortran standard, the term
companion processor is the C processor (ie., the C compiler).

Having read OP's original post, it appears to be a rambling
free association of terms from the C and Fortran standard
with a vague reference to IEEE 754.

--
steve


 
Reply With Quote
 
Uno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2010
steve wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:04 pm, (E-Mail Removed) (Alan Curry) wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Uno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Is there any notion of a potential "companion processor" in standard C?
>>> I did a search for the term in n1256.pdf and got nothing.

>> I've never heard of it before. My first guess would be that you mean
>> "coprocessor", as in Intel 80387 (reinforced by the later mention of
>> IEEE754). And the answer would be that C doesn't care about how work is
>> divided between chips in a machine.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Almost certainly it would not exist in the standard itself. The
>>> processors that C first imagined were Randian clickers.
>>> Along the way, it becomes very popular and finds that it needs to have
>>> opinions on things like IEEE754. Everyone I talk to says that both C
>>> and Fortran got this wrong, but I have yet to figure out why.
>>> Is it maybe one of those things that was never written because everyone
>>> (in the C community) wanted to have it be the lingua franca.
>>> Or maybe some non-binding agreement?

>> But I really don't know how to make sense of your question. I think you'll
>> have to define "companion processor" for us. It may be a term that only
>> Fortran programmers know.
>>

>
> Yes, it is a Fortran only term. A Fortran processor is anything
> that can translate the Fortran language into some that gets an
> answer. Most people associate a Fortran processor with a Fortran
> compiler. Fortran has a feature known as the ISO C BINDING, which
> as the name suggests tries to define an inter-language interface
> between Fortran and ISO C. In the Fortran standard, the term
> companion processor is the C processor (ie., the C compiler).


With the exception that it doesn't need to be standard C.
>
> Having read OP's original post, it appears to be a rambling
> free association of terms from the C and Fortran standard
> with a vague reference to IEEE 754.


I'd just like to point out the ungrammatical nature of steve's last
sentence. Furthermore, I think his point-of-view puerile with respect
to computers that take down a job together, co-processing.

Since he knows more and comments more about the interaction of my
favorite syntaxes, he can insult me all day long.
--
Uno
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Prince
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2010
On 9/25/2010 11:31 PM, Uno wrote:

>
> Since he knows more and comments more about the interaction of my
> favorite syntaxes, he can insult me all day long.


and you can continue to demonstrate the deficiencies of our spam killers

--
Tim Prince
 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2010
On 2010-09-26, Tim Prince <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 11:31 PM, Uno wrote:
>> Since he knows more and comments more about the interaction of my
>> favorite syntaxes, he can insult me all day long.


> and you can continue to demonstrate the deficiencies of our spam killers


I still don't understand why "Uno" has to change nyms every so often to
avoid killfiles. You'd think he'd be happier if the people who think he's
a troll or an idiot weren't reading his posts.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
Tim Prince wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 11:31 PM, Uno wrote:
>
>>
>> Since he knows more and comments more about the interaction of my
>> favorite syntaxes, he can insult me all day long.

>
> and you can continue to demonstrate the deficiencies of our spam killers
>


and since you post useful source, just go ahead and add an insult. I
think of you like Tim P., one of russian professors. He may have
sounded mean on the internet, but he was 5'6".

I'll bet dollars to donuts that you and steve can't be 12 feet tall.
--
Uno
 
Reply With Quote
 
Uno
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
Seebs wrote:
> On 2010-09-26, Tim Prince <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 9/25/2010 11:31 PM, Uno wrote:
>>> Since he knows more and comments more about the interaction of my
>>> favorite syntaxes, he can insult me all day long.

>
>> and you can continue to demonstrate the deficiencies of our spam killers

>
> I still don't understand why "Uno" has to change nyms every so often to
> avoid killfiles. You'd think he'd be happier if the people who think he's
> a troll or an idiot weren't reading his posts.


No, you british turd.

It's time you did a CBFalconer and just died.
--
Uno
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
On Sep 27, 11:59*am, Uno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> It's time you did a CBFalconer and just died.
>

And what do you think people who might have known Chuck will think on
reading that?

Please show a bit of commonsense.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom St Denis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2010
On Sep 27, 7:00*am, Richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > On Sep 27, 11:59*am, Uno <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> It's time you did a CBFalconer and just died.

>
> > And what do you think people who might have known Chuck will think on
> > reading that?

>
> > Please show a bit of commonsense.

>
> Oh ****. Chuck didn't pass away did he?
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.


Even if he hadn't [I don't know one way or the other but it sounds
familiar] you don't wish for peoples death. I suspect "Uno" refers to
the number of surviving brain cells in his head...

Tom
 
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
when do I see this? XSLTProcessor processor XSLTProcessor processor brahatha Java 1 06-15-2007 10:52 AM
win xp pro sp2 64 bit is a multi processor or a uni processor =?Utf-8?B?dW1lc2g=?= Windows 64bit 4 08-01-2006 05:24 AM
AMD 64 X2 Processor: Any what to tell what program/process is assigned to processor? The Frozen Canuck Windows 64bit 1 01-16-2006 07:45 PM
Processor fried, should I upgrade or just buy a processor? Dim Computer Support 6 06-21-2004 08:11 PM
Help with script from Companion CD =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXI=?= MCSD 0 05-03-2004 03:11 AM



Advertisments