Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Re: A portable stack in C

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: A portable stack in C

 
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2011
On 2011-11-19, blmblm myrealbox.com <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'd say not so much troll as, um, "person with unusual opinions, fond
> of airing them" (to be diplomatic), but -- whatever.


He's either intentionally trolling or seriously illucid. He seems to be
deeply convinced that it's vital to use single-character names for efficiency
whenever possible, for instance.

He's been writing stupendously bad code in C for as long as anyone can
remember, and he seems to be functionally ineducable. He might be a troll,
he might not be, but in any event it doesn't seem possible to communicate
productively with him at this time.

-s
--
Copyright 2011, 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
 
 
 
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2011
Seebs wrote:

> He's been writing stupendously bad code in C for as long as anyone can
> remember, and he seems to be functionally ineducable.


That's a fricken oxymoron: I've yet to see a C programmer write any good
code! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
Keith Thompson wrote:

Aside. This is your (decidedly old world banner): Keith Thompson
(The_Other_Keith)

Who the **** is that? Read, you post **** like that, it better be
underlined. (For you, that means "hyperlink", look it up).

I have better things to do than you making mad as hell. Bitch.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
On Nov 18, 9:40*am, "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel messaggionews:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:4ec53d42$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> > > "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
> > > messaggio
> > >news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > >> io_x <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > >>> in the while the train go always more far from home


<snip train gibberish>

> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> sort of metaphor?

[...]
> #it is not one metatphor


so explain what you mean or shut up about the train


> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>
> > > lets call one programming language X
> > > i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
> > > is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
> > > without U.B.

>
> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability but a
> slow compiler.
>
> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
> #if they are complex or easy


no.

> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>
> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat u32[operators]=u32,
> #call32[stack],


is that C

> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32, pop32,
> ret_XXbits
> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
> #i think with that all could be easy
> #where 32 means 32 bit


that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> io_x <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home

>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?

> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor

>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me
> to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?


You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear the
train? Really? Don't **** with me.


Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump
that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
Nick Keighley wrote:
"Who will stop the rain"?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Carmody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
"Jo" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
> >> messaggionews:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> >>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
> >>>> messaggio
> >>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >>>>> io_x <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >
> >>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home

> >
> > <snip train gibberish>
> >
> >> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
> >> sort of metaphor?

> > [...]
> >> #it is not one metatphor

> >
> > so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want me
> > to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?


The post I received at my server ended at "train".

Do not misquote people.

> You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear the
> train? Really? Don't **** with me.
>
>
> Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can trump
> that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not you.


Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more.
You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.

Phil
--
Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity
-- Dennis Ritchie (1941-2011), Unix Co-Creator
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Jo" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> "Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggionews:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto
>>>>>> nel messaggio
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>>>> io_x <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home
>>>
>>> <snip train gibberish>
>>>
>>>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>>>> sort of metaphor?
>>> [...]
>>>> #it is not one metatphor
>>>
>>> so explain what you mean or shut up about the train. You just want
>>> me to cry. Are you you ****in stupid?

>
> The post I received at my server ended at "train".
>
> Do not misquote people.


I don't quote anyone. Who do think is so important and that I blasphemed?

>
>> You like to argue with me. You are ****ing with me. You don't hear
>> the train? Really? Don't **** with me.
>>
>>
>> Your are certainly a ****ing idiot. Step up, the only one that can
>> trump that, is me. And that is a lie. Just leave me alone. I am not
>> you.

>
> Then again, if you do misquote people, I won't notice it any more.
> You've proved yourself entirely not worth reading.
>


Amd this fixiation of yours of the train, I am supposed to take that how?
Why dont you ask your dad about that instead of wasting my time.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
On Nov 21, 7:24*am, "Jo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> Aside. This is your (decidedly old world banner): Keith Thompson
> (The_Other_Keith)
>
> Who the <expletive> is that?


plonk
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2011
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:40 am, "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Nick Keighley" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
>> messaggionews:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Nov 17, 5:35 pm, "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> "io_x" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:4ec53d42$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> ha scritto nel
>>>> messaggio
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> In article <4ec14700$0$1387$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>>> io_x <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>>>> in the while the train go always more far from home

>
> <snip train gibberish>
>
>> [...] So io_x are you *actually* on a train or is it some
>> sort of metaphor?

> [...]
>> #it is not one metatphor

>
> so explain what you mean or shut up about the trai
>
>


You mean about how you suck so bad. It was never for you, idiot.


I was here 2 years ago. I put away the guitar, not that I was good at it.
I said, ("said") I will put music on hold.


I suck at playing guitar, but ain't you still here asking me about a
train.


yeah, the train and me, it's none of your ****ing business.

Don't you even dare engage me, because I have nothing better to do then
to get you out of my face.

>> Ritchie the Fat Controller and bit fields the grumpy carriages...
>>
>>>> lets call one programming language X
>>>> i thought only if instead of doing the traslation X -> x86 cpu
>>>> is it possible doing X -> C -> all cpu
>>>> without U.B.

>>
>> C as universal assembler. This is actually how a lot of langauges are
>> implemented (at least initially). C++ was a compiler that compiled
>> into C. the advantage of this approach is you [get] high portability
>> but a
>> slow compiler.
>>
>> #it depend what is the set of instructions you send to compiler
>> #if they are complex or easy

>
> no.
>
>> I've also heard it said C isn't a particularly good "universal
>> assmbler". Though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it isn't low
>> level enough to do some of the things needed. (I tried writing a
>> scheme (ie.lisp) interpreter in C and it was horrid C)
>>
>> #i don't know; i like on 32 bits unsigned, most importat
>> u32[operators]=u32, #call32[stack],

>
> is that C
>
>> #variables definition[in the stack], jumps32, clc, stc, push32,
>> pop32,
>> ret_XXbits
>> # esp for reserve memory in the stack and use it
>> #i think with that all could be easy
>> #where 32 means 32 bit

>
> that definitely isn't C. Did you read what I wrote?



 
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
Re: A portable stack in C Barry Schwarz C Programming 30 01-19-2012 07:41 AM
C/C++ compilers have one stack for local variables and return addresses and then another stack for array allocations on the stack. Casey Hawthorne C Programming 3 11-01-2009 08:23 PM
stack frame size on linux/solaris of a running application stack Surinder Singh C Programming 1 12-20-2007 01:16 PM
Portable Python - free portable development environment ! perica.zivkovic@gmail.com Python 7 01-13-2007 11:19 AM
portable (VHDL) vs. non-portable (altera LPM) approaches to signed computations Eli Bendersky VHDL 1 03-01-2006 02:43 PM



Advertisments