The subject recently came up in comp.compilers, though I believe that
I asked here before.
If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
char *one="one";
char *two="two";
if(one<two || one>two) printf("not equal\n");
else printf("equal\n");
}
Is it allowed to print equal?
This question comes up for systems such as JVM that consider object
references as opaque, and the offset must be kept separately. For
operators other than == and != I would only compare the offset part.
JVM has only equality test for object references.
-- glen
27  3079 
In article <z28Bb.341376$275.1122431@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <ga*@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: The subject recently came up in comp.compilers, though I believe that
I asked here before.
If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
char *one="one";
char *two="two";
if(one<two || one>two) printf("not equal\n");
else printf("equal\n");
}
Is it allowed to print equal?
This question comes up for systems such as JVM that consider object
references as opaque, and the offset must be kept separately. For
operators other than == and != I would only compare the offset part.
It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Comparing pointers with <, <=, > or >= is only allowed if both point
into the same object.
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
The subject recently came up in comp.compilers, though I believe that
I asked here before.
If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
char *one="one";
char *two="two";
if(one<two || one>two) printf("not equal\n");
else printf("equal\n");
}
Is it allowed to print equal?
This question comes up for systems such as JVM that consider object
references as opaque, and the offset must be kept separately. For
operators other than == and != I would only compare the offset part.
JVM has only equality test for object references.
-- glen
There is rarely any point in using relational operators other than "=="
and "!=" unless the pointers point to some primitive. Otherwise, you are
comparing addresses of structs or arrays, which would appear to you as
rather random, since you have no control over where the compiler places
them on creation.
In your example above, the only guarantee is that they are not equal,
since the two pointers point to different locations in memory.
--
Fred L. Kleinschmidt
Boeing Associate Technical Fellow
Technical Architect, Common User Interface Services
M/S 2R-94 (206)544-5225
In article <z28Bb.341376$275.1122431@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <ga*@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
No. (In fact, the C standard calls == and != "equality operators"
just so that it can separate them out from the <, <=, >, and >=
operators; and the only reason to do that is because the latter
four are undefined on pointers.)
This question comes up for systems such as JVM that consider object
references as opaque, and the offset must be kept separately. For
operators other than == and != I would only compare the offset part.
This has historical precedent in "large model" 80x86 C compilers,
which did precisely the same thing. I suspect those 80x86 C
compilers are the main reason the C standard says what it says. :-)
(Now let's see if the .signature comes out at all this time...)
--
In-Real-Life: 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.
Christian Bau wrote: It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Grumble wrote: Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Install Windows 3.1 ?
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
On 2003-12-09, Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Christian Bau wrote: It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C. Please
try a newsgroup more specific to your platform.
-- James
"Chris Torek" <no****@torek.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:br*********@enews1.newsguy.com... In article <z28Bb.341376$275.1122431@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <ga*@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
No. (In fact, the C standard calls == and != "equality operators"
just so that it can separate them out from the <, <=, >, and >=
operators; and the only reason to do that is because the latter
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ four are undefined on pointers.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, Chris, I don't get that.
I understand that you refer to pointers to different objects here, (if the
pointers point to the same object, these operators are well defined if I
understand 6.5.8 v2 of n869 correctly). But I cannot see a connection with
the reason you mention.
kind regards
Robert
Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.com> wrote in message news:<sx**************@news.uswest.net>... Grumble wrote:
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Install Windows 3.1 ?
Install Windows XP and show it a Linux boot disk?
"August Derleth" <li***************@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b6*************************@posting.google.co m... Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:<sx**************@news.uswest.net>... Grumble wrote:
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Install Windows 3.1 ?
Install Windows XP and show it a Linux boot disk?
Install Linux and show it an XP boot disk? <g, d&r>
In article <br**********@news-rocq.inria.fr>, in*****@kma.eu.org says... Christian Bau wrote: It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Assume a nuclear power plant is the device attached to stdout and
parses control rod positioning commands sent to it via the same. It
shouldn't be difficult in such a case to cause not only the
computer, but a large area surrounding it turn into a smoking hole.
--
Randy Howard _o
2reply remove FOOBAR \<,
______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
SCO Spam-magnet: po********@sco.com
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:38:39 -0800, August Derleth wrote: Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.com> wrote in message news:<sx**************@news.uswest.net>... Grumble wrote:
> Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Install Windows 3.1 ?
Install Windows XP and show it a Linux boot disk?
I'd think the other way around would be more likely. "Oh, no! You're
*not* going to make me run *THAT* are you???" :)
Chris Torek <no****@torek.net> writes: In article <z28Bb.341376$275.1122431@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <ga*@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
No. (In fact, the C standard calls == and != "equality operators"
just so that it can separate them out from the <, <=, >, and >=
operators; and the only reason to do that is because the latter
four are undefined on pointers.)
They are not undefined if the pointers point within a single
array. Another reason to separate them is that equality
operators and relational operators have different precedence.
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}
In <br*********@enews1.newsguy.com> Chris Torek <no****@torek.net> writes: In article <z28Bb.341376$275.1122431@attbi_s53>,
glen herrmannsfeldt <ga*@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:If you use relational operators, other than == and !=, on
pointers to different objects, is there any requirement on
the result?
No. (In fact, the C standard calls == and != "equality operators"
just so that it can separate them out from the <, <=, >, and >=
operators; and the only reason to do that is because the latter
four are undefined on pointers.) ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Are you sure? ;-)
They are undefined on pointers to different objects only.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
>"Chris Torek" <no****@torek.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:br*********@enews1.newsguy.com... No. (In fact, the C standard calls == and != "equality operators"
just so that it can separate them out from the <, <=, >, and >=
operators; and the only reason to do that is because the latter ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ four are undefined on pointers.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In article <3f***********************@newsreader02.highway.te lekom.at>,
Robert Stankowic <pc******@netway.at> wrote:Sorry, Chris, I don't get that.
I understand that you refer to pointers to different objects here, (if the
pointers point to the same object, these operators are well defined if I
understand 6.5.8 v2 of n869 correctly). But I cannot see a connection with
the reason you mention.
Perhaps it is best if I just say "it was late at night and I was
tired while testing the new trn" :-)
The separation of the operators also gives them different binding
("precedence" in an operator-precedence grammar), so that:
p == q < r == s
parses as:
(p == q) < (r == s)
Hence the separation serves a number of purposes. I was just plain
wrong.
--
In-Real-Life: 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.
In article <br**********@news-rocq.inria.fr>,
Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Christian Bau wrote: It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
I don't, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was an ANSI standard for
the use of explosives, so there is probably an ANSI-conforming way to
make a computer explode safely without the risk of injuring anyone. I
wouldn't know which newsgroup you would have to check if you are
interested.
Randy Howard wrote: In article <br**********@news-rocq.inria.fr>, in*****@kma.eu.org says...
Christian Bau wrote:
It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
Assume a nuclear power plant is the device attached to stdout and
parses control rod positioning commands sent to it via the same. It
shouldn't be difficult in such a case to cause not only the
computer, but a large area surrounding it turn into a smoking hole.
Usually they have interlocks that will guarantee that software can't
go too wrong. Unless the valve gets stuck open, or something
similar happens.
-- glen
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote: On 2003-12-09, Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Christian Bau wrote: It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
On 2003-12-09, Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Christian Bau wrote:
It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
Chapter and verse please!
-- James
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:09:00 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote: On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
On 2003-12-09, Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
Christian Bau wrote:
> It invokes undefined behavior, so it can print anything. Or your
> computer might explode.
Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
Chapter and verse please!
3.4.3 covers it nicely.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:09:00 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
On 2003-12-09, Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote:
> Do you know an ANSI-conformant way to make one's computer explode?
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
Chapter and verse please!
3.4.3 covers it nicely.
I find no mention of "eventually a computer will explode" in that
paragraph.
It doesn't even imply that out of an infinite set of computers, one
will explode if UB is invoked.
And furthermore, if a C program is invoking UB, it is not a strictly
conforming program.
Please stop trolling.
:-p
-- James
James Hu wrote: On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
Chapter and verse please!
Since it is well-known that UB is an abominable thing to invoke, and since
everybody who has ever watched a science fiction movie knows that fire
makes computers explode (irrespective of the presence or absence of, say,
Semtex or a large bottle of nitroglycerine within the computer's casing), I
suspect that Revelation 21:8 satisfies your requirement for chapter and
verse.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:39:22 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote: On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:09:00 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
3.4.3 covers it nicely.
I find no mention of "eventually a computer will explode" in that
paragraph.
It clearly says that undefined behaviour is anything not defined by
the standard. Exploding computers are not defined by the standard. So
therefore they're covered by this section.
It doesn't even imply that out of an infinite set of computers, one
will explode if UB is invoked.
It also doesn't say that your machine will print an error
"segmentation fault: core dumped" or "this program has performed an
illegal instruction" or "a small blue fish has just flown out of your
nostril".
So what?
Please stop trolling.
Stop yourself...
:-)
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:46:37 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: James Hu wrote:
On 2003-12-13, Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:42:48 -0600, in comp.lang.c , James Hu
<jx*@despammed.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an exploding computer in Standard C.
Nonsense. Invoke UB in a tight loop on an infinite number of computers
and /eventually/ one of them will explode.
Chapter and verse please!
I suspect that Revelation 21:8 satisfies your requirement for chapter and
verse.
Presumably the Authorised Version as revised by CLC now reads:
"But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all users of undefined
behaviour, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur,
which is the second death."
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.angelfire.com/ms3/bchambless0/welcome_to_clc.html>
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
<snip> Since it is well-known that UB is an abominable thing to invoke, and since
everybody who has ever watched a science fiction movie knows that fire
makes computers explode (irrespective of the presence or absence of, say,
Semtex or a large bottle of nitroglycerine within the computer's casing), <snip>
When has fire ever caused a computer to explode? What movie/TV fire
causes is the rapid failure of physical structures, preferentially
downward even in space, usually while not injuring people in the same
room beyond depositing some soot on them.
(Unless you mean "fire" in the military sense of shooting at it. That
causes even inert things to explode.)
What mostly causes explosion of computers, or rather usually displays
including (noncomputer) data and even video monitors, is a physical
impact at some remote location on the sensors or other peripherals
connected electronically or virtually to the monitor(s), or less often
the input of invalid data and/or unauthorized commands.
- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> spoke thus: "But for the cowardly, unbelieving, sinners, abominable, murderers,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all users of undefined
behaviour, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur,
which is the second death."
Other than the fact that void main() is omitted, that seems reasonable
to me.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
"Dave Thompson" <da*************@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:31********************************@4ax.com... On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
<snip> Since it is well-known that UB is an abominable thing to invoke, and since
everybody who has ever watched a science fiction movie knows that fire
makes computers explode (irrespective of the presence or absence of, say,
Semtex or a large bottle of nitroglycerine within the computer's casing),
<snip>
When has fire ever caused a computer to explode? What movie/TV fire
causes is the rapid failure of physical structures, preferentially
downward even in space, usually while not injuring people in the same
room beyond depositing some soot on them.
(Unless you mean "fire" in the military sense of shooting at it. That
causes even inert things to explode.)
What mostly causes explosion of computers, or rather usually displays
including (noncomputer) data and even video monitors, is a physical
impact at some remote location on the sensors or other peripherals
connected electronically or virtually to the monitor(s), or less often
the input of invalid data and/or unauthorized commands.
Or installing Windows...
"xarax" <xa***@email.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:oa******************@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net... "Dave Thompson" <da*************@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:31********************************@4ax.com... On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:46:37 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
<snip> Since it is well-known that UB is an abominable thing to invoke, and
since everybody who has ever watched a science fiction movie knows that fire
makes computers explode (irrespective of the presence or absence of,
say, Semtex or a large bottle of nitroglycerine within the computer's
casing), <snip>
When has fire ever caused a computer to explode? What movie/TV fire
causes is the rapid failure of physical structures, preferentially
downward even in space, usually while not injuring people in the same
room beyond depositing some soot on them.
(Unless you mean "fire" in the military sense of shooting at it. That
causes even inert things to explode.)
What mostly causes explosion of computers, or rather usually displays
including (noncomputer) data and even video monitors, is a physical
impact at some remote location on the sensors or other peripherals
connected electronically or virtually to the monitor(s), or less often
the input of invalid data and/or unauthorized commands.
Or installing Windows...
Or installing *nux - it does seldom cause the computer to explode, but
forgets the mouse, doesn't use DMA if not told explicitely.. and sometimes
at release 69255.1024.1234 it even may..... er - hm
Sorry, could not resist :^/
Robert This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: John Benson |
last post by:
Hi, I've been looking at the "Oracle9 i Database New Features" guide, from
which I quote:
XML Generation
In response to the challenge of generating XML in bulk from a database, XML
generation...
|
by: Balaji |
last post by:
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for your reply. I see that the PEP and the current docs
specify that __ge__ and __le__ are their own reflection.
Given that PEP 207 proposes rich comparison to handle cases...
|
by: yensao |
last post by:
Hi,
I have a hard time to understand difference and similarities between
Relational database model and the Object-Oriented model. Can somebody
help me with this?
Thank you in advance.
...
|
by: Greenhorn |
last post by:
Hi,
Those relational operators have operands of all numerical type
int,char,float etc.
They also are working for character arrays. Whats the logic behind
their working. Is the length of the...
|
by: raju |
last post by:
hi
can we compare two integers without using relational operators (== != <
<= > >=)
thanks
rajesh s
|
by: Edward Diener |
last post by:
The documentation states the names of the various managed operators but does
not give the signature for them. Is there some documentation which I have
missed that gives the correct signature ? In...
|
by: Robert Abi Saab |
last post by:
Hi everyone. I just finished a course on PostgreSQL and I found out that
PostgreSQL doesn't provide any object relational features (as claimed in
the official documentation), except table...
|
by: AliceB.Toklas |
last post by:
In my Absolute Beginner's Guide to C book by Greg Perry
where it is instruction how relational operators work it gives the
following example:
int i = 5;
so the following statement is true:
...
|
by: jsparks57 |
last post by:
I want to cin two characters for any of the six relational operators.
'>=' no problem or '!=' no problem.
The problem is for reading single character '<' and '>'.
My code wants to read two...
|
by: CloudSolutions |
last post by:
Introduction:
For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 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 former...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
| |
