My question is more generic, but it involves what I consider ANSI standard C
and portability.
I happen to be a system admin for multiple platforms and as such a lot of
the applications that my users request are a part of the OpenSource
community. Many if not most of those applications strongly require the
presence of the GNU compiling suite to work properly. My assumption is that
this is due to the author/s creating the applications with the GNU suite.
Many of the tools requested/required are GNU replacements for make,
configure, the loader, and lastly the C compiler itself. Where I'm going
with this is, has the OpenSource community as a whole committed itself to at
the very least encouraging its contributing members to conform to ANSI
standards of programming?
My concern is that as an admin I am sometimes compelled to port these
applications to multiple platforms running the same OS and as the user
community becomes more and more insistent on OpenSource applications will
gotcha's appear due to lack of portability in coding? I fully realize that
independent developers may or may not conform to standards, but again is it
at least encouraged?
11.32 of the FAQ seemed to at least outline the crux of what I am asking.
If I loaded up my home machine to the gills will all open source compiler
applications (gcc, imake, autoconfig, etc....) would my applications that I
compile and link and load conform?
Aug 1 '06
239 10370
In article <11************ **********@n13g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
<we******@gmail .comwrote:
>Walter Roberson wrote:
>Caution: on most 2s complement machines, the *signed* integers do not form a ring. In cases where INT_MIN is (INT_MAX  1) (e.g., INT_MIN is 32768 for an INT_MAX of 32767) then there is no "additive inverse" for INT_MIN  no element in the set such that INT_MIN plus the element is 0.
>What do you mean? The additive inverse of INT_MIN is INT_MIN.
It is true that the additive inverse is not required to be distinct
from the original value, but in order for the additive inverse of
INT_MIN to be INT_MIN, then INT_MIN + INT_MIN would have to equal 0.
That is not at all guaranteed in C's operator definitions:
the C definition of addition and subtraction on the signed integral
types leaves it up to the implementation (or undefined behaviour) as
to what happens in cases of overflow or underflow.
The C operations on the unsigned integral types are strictly defined;
those on the signed integral types are not.

I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim.
 Christopher Priest
Walter Roberson wrote:
<we******@gmail .comwrote:
Chris Torek wrote:
In article <11************ *********@i42g2 000cwa.googlegr oups.com>
<we******@gmail .comwrote (replying to someone else):
A Ring is a set with a 0, a + operator and a * operator. And the point
is that its completely *closed* under these operations.
This is ... hardly a thorough definition.
I didn't claim it was. This isn't a classroom; thoroughness is not the
same as correctness.
You gave a definition for ring,
I did? Look. Pay attention:
A cat is an animal with fur, four legs and whiskers.
Is that a definition? It was my intent just to give sufficient
properties of a ring to explain why Keith's notion of what a ring is is
just not going to cut it.
[...] but there are sets that match your
definition that are NOT rings, because your definition was incomplete
even for common types of rings. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ring.html
Right  so you wanted me to paste that whole thing in here? I know
what the definition is, but as you can clearly see, its quite wordy
relative to what its actual content is. I could paste in Russell and
Whitehead's proof that 2+2=4 (although the metamath proof appears to be
much shorter) every time I cite that, but I don't think that it would
be very useful to this audience.
It is not clear to me how someone can complain about someone
else's "bizarre relationship to technical terms" and then themselves
misuse a technical term that they themself have indicated is important
to part of their discussion.
How did I misuse it?

Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ http://bstring.sf.net/
Walter Roberson wrote:
<we******@gmail .comwrote:
Walter Roberson wrote:
Caution: on most 2s complement machines, the *signed* integers do
not form a ring. In cases where INT_MIN is (INT_MAX  1)
(e.g., INT_MIN is 32768 for an INT_MAX of 32767) then there
is no "additive inverse" for INT_MIN  no element in the set
such that INT_MIN plus the element is 0.
What do you mean? The additive inverse of INT_MIN is INT_MIN.
It is true that the additive inverse is not required to be distinct
from the original value, but in order for the additive inverse of
INT_MIN to be INT_MIN, then INT_MIN + INT_MIN would have to equal 0.
That is not at all guaranteed in C's operator definitions:
the C definition of addition and subtraction on the signed integral
types leaves it up to the implementation (or undefined behaviour) as
to what happens in cases of overflow or underflow.
The C operations on the unsigned integral types are strictly defined;
those on the signed integral types are not.
But you're losing context again. That the *C standard* has these
weaknesses is well understood. And I'm sure there are 1s complement
machines, or otherwise where these weaknesses are truly manifest. In
real world 2s complement machines however, you will never see any such
problem. The ring properties are there for both signed and unsigned,
just as you may have learned about 2s complement in school. This is my
point  the standard penalizes your working assumptions, while the
*defacto* standard supports them.
So if you want portability, you have to give up on using math. For
serious environments, that means you have to actually write more
verification code, which are completely pointless on platforms that
support the defacto 2s complement standard.
(Your point also has nothing to do with INT_MIN, BTW. That anomoly
just has to do with intuitive expectations about the negation
operation, which is only a problem of interpretation. Its not an
actual mathematical problem.)

Paul Hsieh http://www.pobox.com/~qed/ http://bstring.sf.net/ we******@gmail. com writes:
Walter Roberson wrote:
> <we******@gmail .comwrote:
>Chris Torek wrote: In article <11************ *********@i42g2 000cwa.googlegr oups.com> <we******@gmai l.comwrote (replying to someone else): A Ring is a set with a 0, a + operator and a * operator. And the point is that its completely *closed* under these operations.
>This is ... hardly a thorough definition.
>I didn't claim it was. This isn't a classroom; thoroughness is not the same as correctness.
You gave a definition for ring,
I did? Look. Pay attention:
A cat is an animal with fur, four legs and whiskers.
Is that a definition? It was my intent just to give sufficient
properties of a ring to explain why Keith's notion of what a ring is is
just not going to cut it.
Ok. Here's the context. You wrote:
 And if you need a correctly functioning ring modulo 2**n? If you can
 assume 2s complement then you've *got one*. Otherwise, you get to
 construct one somehow (not sure how hard this is, I have never ever
 been exposed to a system that didn't *ONLY* support 2s complement).
and I replied:
 It's been a while since my last abstract algebra class, but isn't a
 "ring module 2**n" simply the set of integers from 0 to 2**n1? And
 isn't that precisely what C's *unsigned* integer types are?
I wasn't attempting to offer a *definition* of "ring" either. I was
suggesting that the specified set of integers, along with the required
set of operations, is a ring, and that a C unsigned integer type,
along with those same operations, is also a ring.
You're saying that my "notion of what a ring is is just not going to
cut it". Apparently this is based on the fact that I offered a valid
example of a ring.

Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <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.
In article <11************ *********@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com we******@gmail. com writes:
....
If I can't assume ASCII, then this solution has simply been taken away
from me. Compare this with the Lua language, which allows unordered
specific index autoinitialization.
Eh, well, if you want to limit the usability to languages that use only
the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet...

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
In article <eb*********@ne ws2.newsguy.com Chris Torek <no****@torek.n etwrites:
In article <11************ *********@i42g2 000cwa.googlegr oups.com>
<we******@gmail .comwrote (replying to someone else):
A Ring is a set with a 0, a + operator and a * operator. And the point
is that its completely *closed* under these operations.
This is ... hardly a thorough definition. You need to add
commutativity (for +) and distribution (of * over +), in particular.
And associativity.
In typical 2s complement implementations , I know that integers
(signed or not) are rings. In 1s complement machines  I have
no idea ...
And that is where you have missed Keith Thompson's point  because
even on ones' complement machines, *unsigned* integers (in C) are
still rings. So use "unsigned"; they give you the very property
you want. They *guarantee* it.
I can look further, but I think that in both also signed arithmetic
forms a ring (when overflow gives a properly defined result). But
of course such is not defined in C.

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
In article <11************ **********@p79g 2000cwp.googleg roups.com we******@gmail. com writes:
....
Compare this to the situation in 2s complement. Suppose its
*difficult* to prove something on signed integers, but easy to prove it
for unsigned. But if it turns out you can "lift" from signed to
unsigned through casting and your theorem still makes sense, then you
likely can just apply the proof through this mechanism.
That is very true. But C does not specify the results on overflow of
signed numbers. For a good reason, various machines handle that
differently.
Assuming you can simply apply mathematical theorems to the arithemetic
provided can be very wrong. For instance, the triangle inequality does
not hold for IEEE floating point arithmetic with rounding to nearest.
And you do not need either NaNs or Infinities or overflow to show that.

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
In article <eb**********@c anopus.cc.umani toba.ca ro******@ibd.nr ccnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
In article <11************ *********@h48g2 000cwc.googlegr oups.com>,
<we******@gmail .comwrote:
And if you need a correctly functioning ring modulo 2**n? If you can
assume 2s complement then you've *got one*. Otherwise, you get to
construct one somehow (not sure how hard this is, I have never ever
been exposed to a system that didn't *ONLY* support 2s complement).
Caution: on most 2s complement machines, the *signed* integers do
not form a ring. In cases where INT_MIN is (INT_MAX  1)
(e.g., INT_MIN is 32768 for an INT_MAX of 32767) then there
is no "additive inverse" for INT_MIN  no element in the set
such that INT_MIN plus the element is 0.
Yes, there is. It is INT_MIN. Provided that overflow does not bother
the processor (which we assume, otherwise it would not be closed under
either addition or multiplication) . That INT_MIN is its own additive
inverse is in itself not a problem. And I think it is indeed a ring.
Just as I think that signed 1's complement numbers form a ring (again,
provided that overflow is ignored).
But Paul Hsieh is talking about a ring mod 2**n, and in that case the
numbers are inherently unsigned. In that ring 1 == 2**n  1.
Now his question was whether x << 7 would be equal to x * 128.
And indeed, that is the case, as long as there is no overflow,
it is the case, both on 1's complement and on 2's complement machines
(at least all machines I ever did use). For unsigned arithmetic and
for signed arithmetic.
And, contrary to Paul Hsieh's experience, in my career I think that
I have used 1's complement machines about as long as I have used
2's complement machines. Both about 25 years, but there is some
overlap when I used both.

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
In article <11************ **********@i42g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com we******@gmail. com writes:
....
But you're losing context again. That the *C standard* has these
weaknesses is well understood. And I'm sure there are 1s complement
machines, or otherwise where these weaknesses are truly manifest. In
real world 2s complement machines however, you will never see any such
problem.
You will. Unless you think that the Cray1 and successors is not a
real world machine (but they still were at the time of C89). Or
consider the Gould, also fairly popular around that time. On that
machine INT_MIN was INT_MAX, although it was 2's complement. What
would normally be seen as INT_MIN on 2's complement machines was a
trap representation on the Gould.
The ring properties are there for both signed and unsigned,
just as you may have learned about 2s complement in school. This is my
point  the standard penalizes your working assumptions, while the
*defacto* standard supports them.
Your de facto standard is just a subset of the working machines.
So if you want portability, you have to give up on using math. For
serious environments, that means you have to actually write more
verification code, which are completely pointless on platforms that
support the defacto 2s complement standard.
Yes, so if you omit that code you are *implicitly* doing something
nonportable.

dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
>In article <eb**********@c anopus.cc.umani toba.ca>
>ro******@ibd.n rccnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
>Caution: on most 2s complement machines ... there is no "additive inverse" for INT_MIN  no element in the set such that INT_MIN plus the element is 0.
In article <J3********@cwi .nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi .nlwrote:
>Yes, there is. It is INT_MIN. Provided that overflow does not bother the processor (which we assume, otherwise it would not be closed under either addition or multiplication) .
Indeed, the problem is that overflow is not defined in C. It seems
to me odd for anyone to argue that 10414516 * 50120 "should" be
2010468192 in ordinary (signed integer) arithmetic; it seems to
me more likely that it should be "caught runtime error: integer
overflow" with the default behavior being to terminate the process
(on a Unixlike system anyway). It would be better if the behavior
*were* defined as "caught at runtime" (among other things, perhaps
Yahoo finance would not show NYSE stock trading volume as a negative
number when 2147483600 + 100 becomes 2147483596  apparently
someone forgot to use unsigned there too). But, as we see over
and over again in computing, it tends to be more important to get
the wrong answer as fast as possible... :)
>But Paul Hsieh is talking about a ring mod 2**n, and in that case the numbers are inherently unsigned. In that ring 1 == 2**n  1.
Yes ... so I found his later remarks (along the lines of "what if
I want negative numbers in my ring") rather puzzling. "Negative"
numbers are just positive numbers. This is one of the few places
where C gets the math right "right out of the box". Perhaps he
wants certain large positive numbers to print out, for output
purposes, as negative numbers. This is of course easy to achieve.
For instance, suppose we want our ring mod 2**32 (or whatever) to
hold positive numbers up to 17, and then use the simplest "negative
number" form for the rest of the values:
unsigned result;
...
printf("result is %s%u\n",
result 17 ? "" : "", result 17 ? result : result);
does the trick. This is slightly less convenient than simply lying
with "%d", perhaps  the lie will work on most machines but is not
portable  but clearly much more flexible, as in this example.
(So, I do not understand this complaint. Especially when there
are much more useful things to complain about, such as the lack
of a 2nbit product when multiplying two nbit numbers, or even
a fullprecision (a*b/c) routine, both of which would be quite
useful in certain fields.)

InRealLife: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics 
by: Lefevre 
last post by:
Hello.
I recently discovered that this kind of code :
 struct Object
 {
 string f() { return string("Toto"); }
 }

 int main( ... )

by: jinu1996 
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth.
The Art of Business Website Design
Your website is...

by: Hystou 
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...

by: tracyyun 
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, ZWave, WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...

by: agi2029 
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and nocode agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
 
by: isladogs 
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...

by: conductexam 
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...

by: adsilva 
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?

by: 6302768590 
last post by:
Hai team
i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system

by: muto222 
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
 