Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > size of a pointer on 4-bit system

Reply
Thread Tools

size of a pointer on 4-bit system

 
 
BartC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
"Shao Miller" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:keq517$m9p$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2/4/2013 20:17, BartC wrote:


>> (These would be 1, 4 and 2-bits in order of usefulness.


>> This can be done now, with a crude collection of functions, but would
>> nice to have it as part of the language:
>>

>
> Why do they have to be crude? Functions that the implementation provides
> as extensions needn't be crude at all, and could translate with whatever
> efficiency is possible.


A function library created with ordinary C with no implementation help will
always be lacking.

There is no overloading of the functions (so you'd need separate sets to
deal with 1-bit and 4-bit, unless you made the width a parameter, which is
unwieldy). No overloading of built-in operators (so you'd be writing
indexbit(a,i) instead of a[i]). And so on. There's no integration with the
language.

And without being a standard language feature, every implementation will be
different.

>> bit s[256]; //32 bytes
>> bit* p = &s[123];
>>

>
> /* Is this allowed? */
> struct {
> int i;
> bit ba[5];
> double d;
> } foo;
> size_t sz = sizeof foo;


That's tricky, because C already has bit-fields inside structs! So I'm not
sure how they would interact, or whether successive odd-length bit-arrays
would be packed together, so the next one could start in the middle of a
byte.

(In my implementation, I don't have single bits as independent variables or
struct members; they're only allowed in arrays or as pointer targets (so
it's possible to point to the middle of an ordinary int for example). Your
ba[5] example would start on a byte boundary, and its size would be rounded
up to the next byte, ie. 1 byte.)

--
Bartc


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
Shao Miller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

(snip)

> It's 'sizeof', not 'sizeof()', if you please. Else we could
> discuss the '()+()' operator, the '*()' and '()*()' operators,
> etc.


You mean the operators used in #define macros to avoid precedence
problems with the expressions used?

#define square(x) ((x)*(x))

or

#define square(x) x*x

-- glen
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
Robert Wessel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

(snip, regarding the 4004, I wrote)

>>Data memory is specified as 5120 bits, which I believe
>>is 1280 nybbles. I believe that is five address spaces
>>of 256 nybbles each, addressed with separate instructions.


>>(The 4002 RAM holds 80 nybbles. For the full data space
>>you need some other type of RAM.)


> I agree, that for some of the very small 4-bitters (at least the 4004
> allowed you to read static data from ROM - more than a few
> four-bitters didn't), a C compiler is a bit silly at best, although a
> limited C-like language might be nice in some cases.


Well, do they at least have load immediate?

If I remember, the 8048 has a way to get data from ROM, but not
so convenient as it could be.

> Still, it's a
> rare four-bitter than has more than a couple of K words of instruction
> memory and 128 nibbles of data memory - at that point the overhead to
> implement an eight-bitter becomes trivial (an 8051 core can be done in
> less than 5000* transistors - just adding 128 nibbles of ram will take
> 3000+, and 2K bytes of ROM are the equivalent of 16,000+). Nor do
> large program memory make sense on four-bitters, the invariable worse
> code density on a four-bitter quickly grows the required ROM.


It seems 2300 for the 4004. And intel released the schematics
as part of an anniversary celebration. I would have thought more
for the 8051 than 5000, though.

> More interesting is a case where a larger CPU has smaller (finer?)
> than byte addressing. This has been done (bit addressing on Burroughs
> B1xxx machines, for example), but making it possible to take advantage
> of that in a C program would clearly require some interesting
> extensions.


I don't know the Burroughs machines. As I understand it, the
IBM Stretch is also bit addressable.

> *While that may seem a lot compared to ~6000 for an 8080, the 8051
> will have a number of peripherals (timers, I/O ports, clock
> generators, interrupt controller) that would be external on an 8080.
> Nor is that a sort of lower limit.


-- glen
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 02/05/2013 11:31 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Shao Miller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> It's 'sizeof', not 'sizeof()', if you please. Else we could
>> discuss the '()+()' operator, the '*()' and '()*()' operators,
>> etc.

>
> You mean the operators used in #define macros to avoid precedence
> problems with the expressions used?
>
> #define square(x) ((x)*(x))


In responding to that question, I wanted to refer to the "()" operator,
but the standard never uses that term, so I'll be making a slight
<detour>
The standard defines what the term operator means in 6.4.6p2:
"A punctuator is a symbol that has independent syntactic and semantic
significance. Depending on context, it may specify an operation to be
performed (which in turn may yield a value or a function designator,
produce a side effect, or some combination thereof) in which case it is
known as an operator (other forms of operator also exist in some
contexts)."

The standard never provides a comprehensive definition that includes
those other forms, but it does refer to "the sizeof operator" in several
different contexts. It also refers to "the subscript operator []", so
it's clear that constructs that work like "()" can be called operators,
but it never refers to "the parenthesis operator ()". However, with
those precedents, I think we're entitled to refer to "the parenthesis
operator ()". whenever parentheses are used to create a
primary-expression in accordance with 6.5.1p4.
</detour>

As a macro, square() can be applied to arguments and in contexts where
the following explanation is completely meaningless. However, in normal
use, expansion of square() results in an expression making one use of
the binary '*' operator and three uses of the parenthesis operator. It
does not makes sense to describe it in terms of a ()*() operator.

Similarly, sizeof(5) is an expression making use of one sizeof operator
and one parenthesis operator; it doesn't make sense to talk about it in
terms of a combined sizeof() operator, for the same reason that it
doesn't make sense to talk about a combined ()*() operator.
However, in sizeof(int), the parentheses are part of the syntax of the
sizeof expression, so in that context sizeof() is an operator.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[...]
> Similarly, sizeof(5) is an expression making use of one sizeof operator
> and one parenthesis operator; it doesn't make sense to talk about it in
> terms of a combined sizeof() operator, for the same reason that it
> doesn't make sense to talk about a combined ()*() operator.
> However, in sizeof(int), the parentheses are part of the syntax of the
> sizeof expression, so in that context sizeof() is an operator.


Yes, that's the way the language defines it, no argument there.

But it's not the way I would have defined it.

I think it would have been more consistent to restrict the idea
of an "operator" to something that takes one or more operands,
each of which is an expression, with the operator and its operands
also being an expression. I dislike referring to the `(int)` in
`sizeof (int)` as an operand. (It would be fine if C permitted
parenthesized type names to be expressions, but it doesn't.)
Similarly, I dislike treating `.` as an operator; its left operand
is an expression (of struct or union type), but its right "operand"
can only be an identifier that names a member, and that cannot be
used as expression by itself.

If it had been up to me, the `sizeof` in `sizeof expr` would be
considered an operator, but the `sizeof` in `sizeof (type-name)`
would not; instead, the whole thing would be just a special kind
of expression. And `.member-name` might be treated as a postfix
operator that can be applied to an expression of struct or union
type; either that, or `prefix.member-name` would be another special
kind of expression. (The latter avoids having a potentially
unlimited number of distinct postfix operators.)

Likewise for `_Alignof` and `->`, of course.

But if I were looking for perfect consistency, I wouldn't be
programming in C.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roberto Waltman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
Robert Wessel wrote:
>More interesting is a case where a larger CPU has smaller (finer?)
>than byte addressing. This has been done (bit addressing on Burroughs
>B1xxx machines, for example), but making it possible to take advantage
>of that in a C program would clearly require some interesting
>extensions.


The Intel 8051/2 have a small area of memory configured as single bit
variables that can be directly addressed by the instruction set
without the usual mask/shift/or/and operations.

The Keil C compiler for the '51 has a "bit" type mapped directly to
those. It is posible to set them, clear, compare, etc., but you can
not take their address, declare a pointer to them, etc.
--
Roberto Waltman

[ Please reply to the group,
return address is invalid ]
 
Reply With Quote
 
glen herrmannsfeldt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

(snip on operators, or not)

> Yes, that's the way the language defines it, no argument there.


> But it's not the way I would have defined it.


> I think it would have been more consistent to restrict the idea
> of an "operator" to something that takes one or more operands,
> each of which is an expression, with the operator and its operands
> also being an expression. I dislike referring to the `(int)` in
> `sizeof (int)` as an operand. (It would be fine if C permitted
> parenthesized type names to be expressions, but it doesn't.)
> Similarly, I dislike treating `.` as an operator; its left operand
> is an expression (of struct or union type), but its right "operand"
> can only be an identifier that names a member, and that cannot be
> used as expression by itself.


I suppose, but compare to Fortran where % (the structure member
character), () (array subscript or string substring) and ()
(function call) are not operators.

Unlike C, you can't reference a structure member, subscript,
or call a function from the return value of a function in
Fortran. The value of a function returning a structure, string,
or array has to be assigned to an appropriate variable, and
you reference the member, substring, or element of that variable.

Also, Fortran has functions that work in ways similar to the sizeof
operator, including, in newer standards, C_SIZEOF(). Yes defined
as a function, though I don't believe that you could write one
in Fortran (or C).

> If it had been up to me, the `sizeof` in `sizeof expr` would be
> considered an operator, but the `sizeof` in `sizeof (type-name)`
> would not; instead, the whole thing would be just a special kind
> of expression. And `.member-name` might be treated as a postfix
> operator that can be applied to an expression of struct or union
> type; either that, or `prefix.member-name` would be another special
> kind of expression. (The latter avoids having a potentially
> unlimited number of distinct postfix operators.)


> Likewise for `_Alignof` and `->`, of course.


> But if I were looking for perfect consistency, I wouldn't be
> programming in C.


-- glen
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shao Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/5/2013 06:02, BartC wrote:
> "Shao Miller" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:keq517$m9p$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 2/4/2013 20:17, BartC wrote:

>
>>> (These would be 1, 4 and 2-bits in order of usefulness.

>
>>> This can be done now, with a crude collection of functions, but would
>>> nice to have it as part of the language:
>>>

>>
>> Why do they have to be crude? Functions that the implementation provides
>> as extensions needn't be crude at all, and could translate with whatever
>> efficiency is possible.

>
> A function library created with ordinary C with no implementation help will
> always be lacking.
>


Yes; sorry. I meant that the implementation could allow #include
<bitstuff.h> to do something useful, such as exposing extensions with
non-reserved identifiers. Any functions (or function-like thingies)
that the implementation provides as extensions needn't be implemented in C.

> There is no overloading of the functions (so you'd need separate sets to
> deal with 1-bit and 4-bit, unless you made the width a parameter, which is
> unwieldy). No overloading of built-in operators (so you'd be writing
> indexbit(a,i) instead of a[i]). And so on. There's no integration with the
> language.
>


I'd rather that such an extension actually not be confused with C...
For example, the subscript operator is defined (in part) in terms of
pointer arithmetic and indirection. Pointers point to bytes, not
nibbles. So I'd rather see a different syntax, personally.

> And without being a standard language feature, every implementation will be
> different.
>


Yup.

>>> bit s[256]; //32 bytes
>>> bit* p = &s[123];
>>>

>>
>> /* Is this allowed? */
>> struct {
>> int i;
>> bit ba[5];
>> double d;
>> } foo;
>> size_t sz = sizeof foo;

>
> That's tricky, because C already has bit-fields inside structs! So I'm not
> sure how they would interact, or whether successive odd-length bit-arrays
> would be packed together, so the next one could start in the middle of a
> byte.
>


Well that's the thing... Why does 'bit' or '_Nybble' or whatever have
to be a complete object type? If we drop that claim, perhaps we can
avoid complications like the above, addressing, etc., then use a
convenient (but different) syntax for dealing with these things.
Someone _learning_ from the code also has a better chance of recognizing
such usage as extensions, too. (I'd think.)

> (In my implementation, I don't have single bits as independent variables
> or struct members; they're only allowed in arrays or as pointer targets
> (so it's possible to point to the middle of an ordinary int for
> example). Your ba[5] example would start on a byte boundary, and its
> size would be rounded up to the next byte, ie. 1 byte.)
>


You have a C implementation? Your pointers can point to bits?

--
- Shao Miller
--
"Thank you for the kind words; those are the kind of words I like to hear.

Cheerily," -- Richard Harter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shao Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/5/2013 11:31, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Shao Miller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> It's 'sizeof', not 'sizeof()', if you please. Else we could
>> discuss the '()+()' operator, the '*()' and '()*()' operators,
>> etc.

>
> You mean the operators used in #define macros to avoid precedence
> problems with the expressions used?
>
> #define square(x) ((x)*(x))
>
> or
>
> #define square(x) x*x
>


Heheh, sure. My favourite is probably:

#define Countof(array) (sizeof (array) / sizeof *(array))

Beyond that, 'sizeof()' is obviously valid because it's a description of
the terminal syntax elements for 'sizeof ( type-name )'. But that
leaves out 'sizeof unary-expression', so plain 'sizeof' seems more
appropriate in a discussion of this operator. 'sizeof()' just looks
irritatingly like whoever types it thinks it's a function! (And
sometimes they do!)

--
- Shao Miller
--
"Thank you for the kind words; those are the kind of words I like to hear.

Cheerily," -- Richard Harter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Shao Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/5/2013 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 11:31 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> Shao Miller <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> It's 'sizeof', not 'sizeof()', if you please. Else we could
>>> discuss the '()+()' operator, the '*()' and '()*()' operators,
>>> etc.

>>
>> You mean the operators used in #define macros to avoid precedence
>> problems with the expressions used?
>>
>> #define square(x) ((x)*(x))

>
> In responding to that question, I wanted to refer to the "()" operator,
> but the standard never uses that term, so I'll be making a slight
> <detour>
> The standard defines what the term operator means in 6.4.6p2:
> "A punctuator is a symbol that has independent syntactic and semantic
> significance. Depending on context, it may specify an operation to be
> performed (which in turn may yield a value or a function designator,
> produce a side effect, or some combination thereof) in which case it is
> known as an operator (other forms of operator also exist in some
> contexts)."
>
> The standard never provides a comprehensive definition that includes
> those other forms, but it does refer to "the sizeof operator" in several
> different contexts. It also refers to "the subscript operator []", so
> it's clear that constructs that work like "()" can be called operators,
> but it never refers to "the parenthesis operator ()". However, with
> those precedents, I think we're entitled to refer to "the parenthesis
> operator ()". whenever parentheses are used to create a
> primary-expression in accordance with 6.5.1p4.
> </detour>
>


Parentheses are the terminal syntax elements for a few different cases,
including casts, function calls, compound literals. Typing "the '()'
operator" doesn't help too much to distinguish between these cases.

--
- Shao Miller
--
"Thank you for the kind words; those are the kind of words I like to hear.

Cheerily," -- Richard Harter
 
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
pointer to an array vs pointer to pointer subramanian100in@yahoo.com, India C Programming 5 09-23-2011 10:28 AM
Pointer to pointer or reference to pointer A C++ 7 07-05-2011 07:49 PM
Pointer to pointer Vs References to Pointer bansalvikrant@gmail.com C++ 4 07-02-2009 10:20 AM
passing the address of a pointer to a func that doesnt recieve a pointer-to-a-pointer jimjim C Programming 16 03-27-2006 11:03 PM
Pointer-to-pointer-to-pointer question masood.iqbal@lycos.com C Programming 10 02-04-2005 02:57 AM



Advertisments