As I read it, C99 states that a byte is an:
"addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of
the basic character
set of the execution environment" (3.6)
and that a byte must be at least 8 bits:
"The values given below shall be replaced by constant expressions
suitable for use in #if
preprocessing directives. Moreover, except for CHAR_BIT and
MB_LEN_MAX, the
following shall be replaced by expressions that have the same type as
would an
expression that is an object of the corresponding type converted
according to the integer
promotions. Their implementation-defined values shall be equal or
greater in magnitude
(absolute value) to those shown, with the same sign."
number of bits for smallest object that is not a bit-field (byte)
CHAR_BIT 8 (5.2.4.2.1)
Does this mean that a byte can be larger than 8 bits (ie CHAR_BIT >
8)? I have gotten the impression that a byte, or unsigned char, was
always 8 bits, but perhaps I was wrong. If I am not, is there
somewhere in the standard that defines a byte as always being 8 bits?
Regards,
B.
Oct 1 '07
77  4195 
Kenneth Brody <ke******@spamcop.netwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>A small quibble: Putting C identifiers or keywords in all-caps for
emphasis is not a good idea. void is a keyword; VOID is an identifier
and could very plausibly be a macro name (for example, I've seen code
that conditionally uses ``#define VOID int'' for pre-ANSI
compatibility).
BTDTGTHF.
?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) 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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:vo************@news.individual.net...
Philip Potter <pg*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Richard wrote:
Philip Potter <pg*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Richard wrote:
Philip Potter <pg*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Besides, I did provide a single example:
>>A) Systems where a byte is more than 8 bits :
DSPs are a common example here.
No, you didn't. You mentioned a range of HW where it may or may not
be
>>true :)
Well you wanted the examples, you go find them! :P
Er, I was. Here. From the people who keep telling us about them all.
Was my answer not good enough for you? It sounded to me that you had a
benevolent quest to convince people that their assumptions about the
implementation were not necessarily correct. Surely you can put some
effort into finding some? I've already given you a hint for CHAR_BIT
!= 8.
Are you joking? I asked for some examples of systems. Not vague "maybe
these". So, no, to be honest your "I think there are some DSPs" is not a
good enough example :-; Sorry. Your example is no more helpful than the
"On some systems a byte is more than 8 bits" type statements. Not
helpful to someone new who might like to see a concrete example. Maybe I
was not clear enough in which case I apologise. But it seems you don't
have any experience of any such platforms - so be it.
As for putting some "effort" in - I am. I am asking *here* where there
are a plethora of people who know a lot about such systems. I am hoping
they will give some examples of where a byte is more than 8 bits or
CHAR_BITS is more than 8. And it is a benevolent quest. I want to see
these systems and look at their specs too. It would be really good to
reference them whenever telling people their code is not standards
compliant.
Meanwhile, I won't make these assumptions, and I won't have to rely on
the implementations I use to comply with these assumptions.
But to do that you need to know the standard backwards. Whereas real
examples give real warnings.
From a "real" system that is running today:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<types.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("size of a byte is %d\n", CHAR_BIT);
return 0;
}
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
size of a byte is 9
"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.comwrites:
>
From a "real" system that is running today:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<types.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("size of a byte is %d\n", CHAR_BIT);
return 0;
}
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
size of a byte is 9
What is
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
? And what real system? Thanks for the example.
"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3h************@news.individual.net...
"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.comwrites:
From a "real" system that is running today:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<types.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("size of a byte is %d\n", CHAR_BIT);
return 0;
}
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
size of a byte is 9
What is
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
? And what real system? Thanks for the example.
"-" is the command line prompt, "c * +go" invokes the compiler
and then runs the resulting output.
The hardware is Bull DPS9000 (a descendant of the Honeywell L66
range that was itself a descendant of the GE-600). The GCOS8 operating
system is still in active use today.
Mike Smith wrote:
"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3h************@news.individual.net...
>"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.comwrites:
>>From a "real" system that is running today:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<types.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("size of a byte is %d\n", CHAR_BIT);
return 0;
}
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
size of a byte is 9
What is
>>-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
? And what real system? Thanks for the example.
"-" is the command line prompt, "c * +go" invokes the compiler
and then runs the resulting output.
The hardware is Bull DPS9000 (a descendant of the Honeywell L66
range that was itself a descendant of the GE-600). The GCOS8 operating
system is still in active use today.
I used a gcos8 in 1985. This is an historical machine without
any real usage today. Of course, there are maybe 10-20
installations all over the world, but... I would not care
really.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
jacob:
Of course, there are maybe 10-20
installations all over the world, but... I would not care
really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to the
next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
Martin
In article <11*********************@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups. com>,
>Of course, there are maybe 10-20
installations all over the world, but... I would not care
really.
>Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to the
next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
For the vast majority of software, not being able to run on a handful of
mainframes really doesn't matter at all.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Martin Wells wrote:
jacob:
>Of course, there are maybe 10-20
installations all over the world, but... I would not care
really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to the
next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
Martin
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
Linux versions are available. You just speak without any
knowledge of what I am doing. Of course, it will not run
in your Honeywell... I am glad I saw the last one in 1987.
It was a weird machine, a clone of some GE machine that
accepted only a specific terminal, you couldn't use ASCII
and would ALWAYS give so many problems that we stopped all
support in 87, scrapped those terminals, and stopped
figuring out all this stuff. Of course, you may like it,
or your company likes it who knows. Here in France it
was mandatory in some environments since Bull was
*the* official French computer company and French taxpayers
continued pouring unknown amounts of money into those
obsolete systems.
Twenty years later GCOS is still hunting me. Gosh!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.coma écrit dans le message de
news: Lt******************************@bt.com...
>
"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:3h************@news.individual.net...
>"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.comwrites:
>
From a "real" system that is running today:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<types.h>
int main (void)
{
printf("size of a byte is %d\n", CHAR_BIT);
return 0;
}
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
size of a byte is 9
What is
-c * +go
Gcos8 C rcl3.3
? And what real system? Thanks for the example.
"-" is the command line prompt, "c * +go" invokes the compiler
and then runs the resulting output.
The hardware is Bull DPS9000 (a descendant of the Honeywell L66
range that was itself a descendant of the GE-600). The GCOS8 operating
system is still in active use today.
The current generation of Bull DSP9000 (NovaScale 9xxx) machines run Gcos8
in emulation mode on Intel Itanium 2 processors. Not exactly the old 36 bit
architecture anymore.
--
Chqrlie.
Keith Thompson wrote:
Kenneth Brody <ke******@spamcop.netwrites:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>>A small quibble: Putting C identifiers or keywords in all-caps for
emphasis is not a good idea. void is a keyword; VOID is an identifier
and could very plausibly be a macro name (for example, I've seen code
that conditionally uses ``#define VOID int'' for pre-ANSI
compatibility).
BTDTGTHF.
?
The closest expansion I could find was:
BTDTGTS - Been there, done that, got the T-shirt
Charlie Gordon wrote:
"Mike Smith" <mi*********@no.spam.btconnect.coma écrit dans le message de
news: Lt******************************@bt.com...
>The hardware is Bull DPS9000 (a descendant of the Honeywell L66
range that was itself a descendant of the GE-600). The GCOS8 operating
system is still in active use today.
The current generation of Bull DSP9000 (NovaScale 9xxx) machines run Gcos8
in emulation mode on Intel Itanium 2 processors. Not exactly the old 36 bit
architecture anymore.
GCOS8 under emulation in an Itanium!
This can ONLY be possible at Bull. Of course they HAD to choose
the Itanic, they have chosen ALL weird architectures born dead
since 1982... or more!
If something is bad conceived, eventually Bull will buy it, that
is obvious. The Itanic is a total failure, and Bull will chose
it.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
jacob:
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to the
next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
Martin
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
Linux versions are available. You just speak without any
knowledge of what I am doing.
I'm speaking of your experience with using int instead of size_t, and
the headache it caused you when you got truncation warning when you
ported to another windows version.
When I myself am writing code, I put in casts wherever I'm going to
get an obvious truncation warning. For instance:
#define MONTHS_IN_YEAR 12
char unsigned start_month = 4; /* A value in the range 0 through
11, 0 = Jan, 11 = Dec */
unsigned months_passed = 183; /* A value in the range 0 through
1800 */
char unsigned current_month = (char unsigned)(start_month +
months_passed % MONTHS_IN_YEAR)
/* Cast to suppress truncation warning */
Given the choice of
a) Using size_t
and
b) Using casts
, you chose neither, and ended up with 5 billion warning when you
compiled your code. Granted, the code may still have been portable,
but I'm sure you could have done without those redundant warnings.
Martin
"Martin Wells" <wa****@eircom.neta écrit dans le message de news: 11*********************@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.c om...
jacob:
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to the
next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
Martin
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
Linux versions are available. You just speak without any
knowledge of what I am doing.
I'm speaking of your experience with using int instead of size_t, and
the headache it caused you when you got truncation warning when you
ported to another windows version.
When I myself am writing code, I put in casts wherever I'm going to
get an obvious truncation warning. For instance:
#define MONTHS_IN_YEAR 12
char unsigned start_month = 4; /* A value in the range 0 through
11, 0 = Jan, 11 = Dec */
unsigned months_passed = 183; /* A value in the range 0 through
1800 */
char unsigned current_month = (char unsigned)(start_month +
months_passed % MONTHS_IN_YEAR)
/* Cast to suppress truncation warning */
The need for these casts is a real pain. I'm glad gcc does not produce them
unless you specifically require them. In this particular case, I think your
computation is wrong, the line should read:
unsigned char current_month = (start_month + months_passed) %
MONTHS_IN_YEAR;
Written this way, it would not take a smart compiler to figure the result
should be in the range 0..11 and therefore always fits in an unsigned char.
Given the choice of
a) Using size_t
and
b) Using casts
, you chose neither, and ended up with 5 billion warning when you
compiled your code. Granted, the code may still have been portable,
but I'm sure you could have done without those redundant warnings.
Given the non-sensical choice made for win64 to have
sizeof(long)==sizeof(int)==4 and sizeof(size_t)==sizeof(long long)==8,
mixing int and size_t irresponsibly is not a wise choice.
Furthermore, I think there should be provision in the compiler to enable or
disable each individual warning, either with a command line switch, a
configuration file option or possibly a #pragma.
--
Chqrlie.
jacob navia wrote:
Martin Wells wrote:
>jacob:
>>Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Keith Thompson wrote:
>
Kenneth Brody <ke******@spamcop.netwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
A small quibble: Putting C identifiers or keywords in all-caps for
emphasis is not a good idea. void is a keyword; VOID is an identifier
and could very plausibly be a macro name (for example, I've seen code
that conditionally uses ``#define VOID int'' for pre-ANSI
compatibility).
BTDTGTHF.
?
It's my update to "BTDTGTTS":
Been There, Done That, Got The Header Files.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>
CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Martin Wells wrote:
>>jacob:
Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
lcc-win32 should run in windows 98 unless you use a 486
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Chqrlie:
In this particular case, I think your
computation is wrong, the line should read:
unsigned char current_month = (start_month + months_passed) %
MONTHS_IN_YEAR;
Well let's say that the starting month is April (i.e. 3), and that 14
months have passed. Therefore, the new month should be May (i.e. 5)
Taking *my* formula, we have:
start_month + months_passed % MONTHS_IN_YEAR
3 + 14 % 12
3 + 2
5
Taking *your* formula, we have:
(start_month + months_passed) % MONTHS_IN_YEAR
(3 + 14) % 12
17 % 2
5
Both work.
Written this way, it would not take a smart compiler to figure the result
should be in the range 0..11 and therefore always fits in an unsigned char.
....but the question is what proportion of compilers do it? For now I
think I'll stick to the casts.
Martin
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news: 47***************@yahoo.com...
jacob navia wrote:
>Martin Wells wrote:
>>jacob:
Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
Come on, W98 does not run on a '486, it merely crawls there like a lame dog.
--
Chqrlie.
Martin Wells <wa****@eircom.netwrites:
Chqrlie:
In this particular case, I think your
computation is wrong, the line should read:
unsigned char current_month = (start_month + months_passed) %
MONTHS_IN_YEAR;
Well let's say that the starting month is April (i.e. 3), and that 14
months have passed. Therefore, the new month should be May (i.e. 5)
Let's take another example: the starting month is December ie 11 and 11
months have passed. Therefore the new month should be November (10).
Taking *my* formula, we have:
start_month + months_passed % MONTHS_IN_YEAR
11 + 11 % 12 = 11 + 11 = 22. Oops
Taking *your* formula, we have:
(start_month + months_passed) % MONTHS_IN_YEAR
(11 + 11) % 12 = 22 % 12 = 10
Both work.
Not on all inputs.
Yours,
--
Jean-Marc
Jean-Marc:
Taking *my* formula, we have:
start_month + months_passed % MONTHS_IN_YEAR
11 + 11 % 12 = 11 + 11 = 22. Oops
Now that's what I call a logic bug. :O
Martin
jacob navia wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Martin Wells wrote:
jacob:
Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
lcc-win32 should run in windows 98 unless you use a 486
That's not what you claimed. You apparently don't even know why it
doesn't run on a '486. You lost the ability in one of your
untested revisions years ago. The point is that your claims are
inaccurate, and cannot be trusted.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Charlie Gordon wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Martin Wells wrote:
jacob:
Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
Come on, W98 does not run on a '486, it merely crawls there like a
lame dog.
It runs fine. Some applications don't.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Martin Wells wrote:
jacob:
>
>Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
>world, but... I would not care really.
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
lcc-win32 should run in windows 98 unless you use a 486
That's not what you claimed. You apparently don't even know why it
doesn't run on a '486. You lost the ability in one of your
untested revisions years ago. The point is that your claims are
inaccurate, and cannot be trusted.
I told you thousand times that, Chuck but you will not
listen. I used the instruction xadd in the generated code
and that instruction is pentium only. This doesn't happen
in the compiler, if I remember correctly, but only in the debugger.
Since you did NOT want to pay me my consulting fees to backport
lcc-win32 to your 486 and you are the ONLY user of that backport
you will excuse me but I did not do it.
And you will complain the next 10 years, I know, but that's life
Chuck. No money, no work
:-)
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
jacob navia wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Martin Wells wrote:
>jacob:
>>
>>Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
>>world, but... I would not care really.
>>
>Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
>the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
>
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
>
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
lcc-win32 should run in windows 98 unless you use a 486
That's not what you claimed. You apparently don't even know why it
doesn't run on a '486. You lost the ability in one of your
untested revisions years ago. The point is that your claims are
inaccurate, and cannot be trusted.
I told you thousand times that, Chuck but you will not
listen. I used the instruction xadd in the generated code
and that instruction is pentium only. This doesn't happen
in the compiler, if I remember correctly, but only in the debugger.
Since you did NOT want to pay me my consulting fees to backport
lcc-win32 to your 486 and you are the ONLY user of that backport
you will excuse me but I did not do it.
And you will complain the next 10 years, I know, but that's life
Chuck. No money, no work
No, you are the one confused. I told you what Pentium instruction
was trapping (I don't recall xadd, but I may be mistaken). I am
not complaining, I am simply pointing out that your claims are
flawed, for the benefit of others.
--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news: 47***************@yahoo.com...
Charlie Gordon wrote:
>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Martin Wells wrote:
jacob:
>
>Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
>world, but... I would not care really.
>
Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
Come on, W98 does not run on a '486, it merely crawls there like a
lame dog.
It runs fine. Some applications don't.
Notepad ?
Charlie Gordon wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
47***************@yahoo.com...
>Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
jacob navia wrote:
Martin Wells wrote:
>jacob:
>>
>>Of course, there are maybe 10-20 installations all over the
>>world, but... I would not care really.
>Given you don't care about porting from one version of windows to
>the next, it's hardly suprising you don't care about this.
????
lcc-win runs under
o windows 2000
o windows 98
o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
o windows server 32 and 64 bits
o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
>
It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
Come on, W98 does not run on a '486, it merely crawls there like a
lame dog.
It runs fine. Some applications don't.
Notepad ?
Look, maybe you do not know the history of this. Chuck has been telling
this since more than 6 years. I find his position tragic somehow,
because it represents the views of many people here, that insist on
living in the past.
There is a positive side to that too, the refusal to follow the fads,
the refusal to accept this eternally bloated hardware and software,
the refusal to always use more, consume more, use the fastest machine,
be current with your OS.
Somehow I am like that too in some ways. I stay with a simple language,
I prefer simpler software. That is why I have always tried to argue with
Chuck even if he has gotten into a position so extreme that is a
caricature of mine. But it is a valid position, and if I would have the
time I *would* satisfy him. Maybe I will do it some day.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
jacob navia wrote:
Charlie Gordon wrote:
>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
47***************@yahoo.com...
>>Charlie Gordon wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news:
jacob navia wrote:
<snip>
>>>>>lcc-win runs under
>o windows 2000
>o windows 98
>o windows XP (32 and 64 bits)
>o windows server 32 and 64 bits
>o windows Vista (32 and 64 bits)
>>
>It even runs under windows ME!
No it doesn't. I can't speak for other combinations, but W98 runs
on a '486. lcc-win32 does not.
Come on, W98 does not run on a '486, it merely crawls there like a
lame dog.
It runs fine. Some applications don't.
Notepad ?
Look, maybe you do not know the history of this. Chuck has been telling
this since more than 6 years. I find his position tragic somehow,
because it represents the views of many people here, that insist on
living in the past.
I think if you mentioned on what processors lcc-win32 ran on, there would be
no need for anyone to provide such corrections and the consequent debates.
It my understanding that the command-line tools of the lcc-win32 package
will run on all platforms where a conforming C implementation is available,
while the IDE and the debugger need at least a Pentium processor.
Is this right?
"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.coma écrit dans le message de news: 47***************@yahoo.com...
Charlie Gordon wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
Personally, I would prefer if Standard C mandated 2s-complement
and defined the behaviour of shifting signed integer types left
and right. Maybe we should define a new language, Real-C where
these awkward historical detail would be removed...
Horrors. Then Real-C might even become popular, and all sorts of
code written in it by eager neophytes, which code can no longer be
made to run on older or newer machines, which in turn take
advantage of one or more of the known (or presently unknown)
advantages of sign-magnitude or 1's complement.
In your dreams.
Support for saturated arithmetics is a more likely exension.
--
Chqrlie. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: w3r3w0lf |
last post by:
hello!
I have a following situation:
I have a byte array where at a certain location are stored 4 bytes, and
these should be "put" into long variable (or any other 4 byte one).
ie:
byte...
|
by: napi |
last post by:
I think you would agree with me that a C compiler that directly
produces Java Byte Code to be run on any JVM is something that is
missing to software programmers so far. With such a tool one could...
|
by: Samuel Thomas |
last post by:
Hello Friends,
I understand(could be wrong) that the smallest chunk of memory is
called a word. If that is correct, that means if I am using a 32 bit
OS a word is 4 bytes. So that's why the size...
|
by: Kapil Khosla |
last post by:
Hi,
I am trying to reverse a byte eg.
11010000 should look like
00001011
Plz note, it is not a homework problem and I do not need the c code
for it.
Just give me an idea how should I proceed...
|
by: s.subbarayan |
last post by:
Dear all,
I would like to know the easiest efficient way to set or inject a
particular value in the given word or byte?The problem is:
I have to implement a function which will set a value from...
|
by: Benjamin M. Stocks |
last post by:
Hello all,
I've heard differing opinions on this and would like a definitive
answer on this once and for all. If I have an array of 4 1-byte values
where index 0 is the least signficant byte of a...
|
by: david ullua |
last post by:
I am reading "Joel on Software" these days, and am in stuck with the
question of "how to calculate bitsize of a byte" which is listed as one
of the basic interview questions in Joel's book. Anyone...
|
by: rsood |
last post by:
Hi
I'm developing a program, and naturally I want it to be as portable as
possible. I need to be able to access specific numbers of bytes in it,
but as far as I know, there is no keyword in the...
|
by: quantumred |
last post by:
I found the following code floating around somewhere and I'd like to
get some comments.
unsigned char a1= { 5,10,15,20};
unsigned char a2= { 25,30,35,40};
*(unsigned int *)a1=*(unsigned int...
|
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...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
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...
|
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, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
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...
| |
