stack

[jt]

hello everyone..

int fun()
{
/* anything */
}
int main(void)
{
fun();
}

in this program, when the control is transferred to function fun()..
the return address is pushed to the stack..
Is it possible to access this value..??

[Walter Roberson]

In article <g7**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>In article <g7**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>>Are you related to Robert Mugabe by any chance?

>In my opinion, that was a completely unnecessary and extreme insult.

>Get off your high horse. It was a quip.

Regardless of what you might have -thought- you were posting, what
you *did* post was (in my opinion) a distinct insult, not a quip.
Personally, I don't believe you intended it as humour.

>Heathfield trots out the vote thing time after time. The only people
interested enough were the usual c.l.c clique. It proved nothing.

If you re-examine the postings from that time, I believe you will
find that a large number of people contributed, including a number
that do not contribute very often. It was -not- "the usual c.l.c clique".

Your argument is treading close to the old claim of there being a
"silent majority" that support your position but whom didn't speak up.

If, hypothetically, the strict-topicality stance is what is desired
by the majority of readers, what evidence would you require to
be satisfied that that was the case? What evidence would
be you accept as "proving" something?
--
"Every intellectual product must be judged from the point of view
of the age and the people in which it was produced."
-- Walter Horatio Pater

[Default User]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <g7**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

Get off your high horse. It was a quip.

Regardless of what you might have -thought- you were posting, what
you did post was (in my opinion) a distinct insult, not a quip.
Personally, I don't believe you intended it as humour.

Trolls, feed, don't, please, yadda, yadda.


Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Walter Roberson said:

In article <g7**********@registered.motzarella.org>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

<snip>

>>Heathfield trots out the vote thing time after time. The only people
interested enough were the usual c.l.c clique. It proved nothing.

If you re-examine the postings from that time, I believe you will
find that a large number of people contributed, including a number
that do not contribute very often. It was -not- "the usual c.l.c clique".

Right, it wasn't. And several people (including myself) did express a view
that was not in accordance with the majority view. Richard NoSurname Riley
expressed a view in that thread, however, and so either he's mistaken in
his belief that the only ones interested were what he calls the clc
clique, or he believes that he's part of that clique. Either way, during
that debate he expressed an interest in topicality that was not
significantly more liberal than my own view.

Your argument is treading close to the old claim of there being a
"silent majority" that support your position but whom didn't speak up.

"The lurkers support me in email" is worth a Web search - sung to the tune
of "My bonny lies over the ocean".

If, hypothetically, the strict-topicality stance is what is desired
by the majority of readers, what evidence would you require to
be satisfied that that was the case? What evidence would
be you accept as "proving" something?

It is clear that no amount of evidence will convince him, because his
position is based not on logic but on a negative emotional reaction to the
posting styles of some of the people here - hence his pointlessly contrary
and vehemently held positions on so many issues.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

Harold Aptroot wrote:

>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message

>>Harold Aptroot wrote:

... snip ...

>>>
On this newsgroup, there are no non-standard compliant ways to
do anything. Anything of that nature is off=topic, and may be
found on specialized news-groups dealing with the authors system.

You mean to say that any solution that requires non-standard
compliant code temporarily ceases to exist when talking on this
NG and everyone trying to predend they Do exist will be flamed
for OT-talk? That seems to be happening anyhow

You've got it.

MisterE's reply clearly implied that it cannot be done at all. Apart
from being factually incorrect, his reply was off-topic -- unless you
can cite chapter and verse in the ISO C standard to support his
assertion that you can't access a function's return address *even
using non-portable code*.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Antoninus Twink]

On 5 Aug 2008 at 18:18, Walter Roberson wrote:

Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>>ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>>Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>>>Are you related to Robert Mugabe by any chance?

>>In my opinion, that was a completely unnecessary and extreme insult.

>>Get off your high horse. It was a quip.

Regardless of what you might have -thought- you were posting, what
you *did* post was (in my opinion) a distinct insult, not a quip.
Personally, I don't believe you intended it as humour.

When humor cuts close to the bone, there's a fine line between being
funny and being all too true.

It's clear that there are definite parallels: the self-belief in their
unutterable correctness, as well as the nasty methods they use to attack
their enemies - Mugabe phsyically, Heathfield through a continued
undermining of the reputation of his "adversaries" (i.e. those who dare
to disagree with him).

>>Heathfield trots out the vote thing time after time. The only people
interested enough were the usual c.l.c clique. It proved nothing.

If you re-examine the postings from that time, I believe you will
find that a large number of people contributed, including a number
that do not contribute very often. It was -not- "the usual c.l.c clique".

By your estimation, how many lurkers does this group have for each
regular poster? What, therefore, was the percentage turnout at this
"election" in which Heathfield (like Mugabe) was judge, jury and the
only possible victor?

Your argument is treading close to the old claim of there being a
"silent majority" that support your position but whom didn't speak up.

No less true for being old.

If, hypothetically, the strict-topicality stance is what is desired
by the majority of readers, what evidence would you require to
be satisfied that that was the case? What evidence would
be you accept as "proving" something?

It's impossible to "prove" this either way, just as it's impossible to
say whether the number of babies born in Swaziland yesterday was even
or odd - we have no way of collecting the data.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 5 Aug 2008 at 19:37, Default User wrote:

Trolls, feed, don't, please, yadda, yadda.

Screw, go, yourself, please, yadda, yadda.

[CBFalconer]

Walter Roberson wrote:

Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:

>>Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:

.... snip ...

>>>
Are you related to Robert Mugabe by any chance?

In my opinion, that was a completely unnecessary and extreme
insult.

Get off your high horse. It was a quip.

Regardless of what you might have -thought- you were posting,
what you *did* post was (in my opinion) a distinct insult, not
a quip. Personally, I don't believe you intended it as humour.

I suggest plonking "Richard <rg****@gmail.com>". Then you will
only see his nonsense in others quotes.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?=]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:52:26 -0700, Nick Keighley wrote:

On 4 Aug, 23:25, Harald van Dijk <[e-mail]:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:42:31 -0400, CBFalconer wrote:

Harold Aptroot wrote:
"MisterE" <[e-mail] in message
Is it possible to access [the return address] value..??

>>No.

>Of course it is. The OP did not request a standard compliant way to
do it after all

On this newsgroup, there are no non-standard compliant ways to do
anything. Anything of that nature is off=topic,

Please don't use topicality as an excuse or defence for lies.

its not a lie. It's a fact. Your statement is incorrect.

My statement?

There *is* no
standard way to do this and since the topic of this NG is standard C
there is no way to do it that is topical to this NG.

"There is no way to do it that is topical to this NG" and "There is no way
to do it" are very different. The former I have no problem with. The
latter I do, particularly because it suggests that there are no relevant
points to the question outside of the bounds of this group's topicality.
In other words, given "no" as an answer, there is no reason to try asking
on other groups.

Though I must admit
I'd have suggested trying another NG.

That's what I'm after.

[Anand Hariharan]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:47:57 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
It's considerably less than a year ago that we discussed topicality at some
length. Everyone had a chance to have their say, and many people availed
themselves of that opportunity.

MID please?

[Richard Heathfield]

Anand Hariharan said:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:47:57 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>
It's considerably less than a year ago that we discussed topicality at
some length. Everyone had a chance to have their say, and many people
availed themselves of that opportunity.

MID please?

Gladly.

<Q4******************************@bt.com(posted on 29 September 2007)
begins a thread of over 200 articles, most of which are from people whose
views on topicality are rather more strict than mine.

<ac******************************@bt.com(posted a few days later)
contains a brief tabulated summary of views expressed in the earlier
thread. You will be glad to hear that it has far fewer followups than the
first thread.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson wrote:

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

>Harold Aptroot wrote:

>>"CBFalconer" <cb********@yahoo.comwrote in message

... snip ...

>>>>
On this newsgroup, there are no non-standard compliant ways to
do anything. Anything of that nature is off=topic, and may be
found on specialized news-groups dealing with the authors system.

You mean to say that any solution that requires non-standard
compliant code temporarily ceases to exist when talking on this
NG and everyone trying to predend they Do exist will be flamed
for OT-talk? That seems to be happening anyhow

You've got it.

MisterE's reply clearly implied that it cannot be done at all.
Apart from being factually incorrect, his reply was off-topic --
unless you can cite chapter and verse in the ISO C standard to
support his assertion that you can't access a function's return
address *even using non-portable code*.

I disagree. First, there is nothing from MisterE in the quotes
above, so anything he said is not applicable (nor in my earlier
here-quoted messages). I said 'on this newsgroup' and 'specialized
news-groups dealing with'. I then agreed with Mr. Aptroots
non-enthusiastic comment.

The quotation attributions above seem accurate to me.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[Chris Dollin]

Richard wrote:

Are you related to Robert Mugabe by any chance?

Any doubts I had about you being a deliberate trouble-maker
have been smashed, burnt, and the smoke thrown into the Sun.

If you thought that was /funny/, I have no hope for you.

--
'It changed the future .. and it changed us.' /Babylon 5/

Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

[David Thompson]

On 3 Aug 2008 23:50:24 GMT, Chris Torek <no****@torek.netwrote:

In article <38**********************************@v1g2000pra.g ooglegroups.com>
jt <ka**********@gmail.comwrote:

<snip>

the return address is pushed to the stack..

Actually, it is put in the register "lr" (PPC), "ra" (MIPS), "%o7"
(SPARC), or 14 (IBM S/390; spelled %r14 in GNU assembler). As

S/360,370,390 by convention only; the hardware is equally happy with
any GPR except 0. IIUC zSeries has some new options (insns) also.

others have noted, if fun() is expanded in line, there is no control
transfer at all. But on the VAX and PDP-11, it is indeed placed
on the (hardware) stack.

In PDP-11 it can be pushed, or stored to any of R0 .. R5 and that
register's previous contents pushed (instead). I believe that C on
early-Unix -- around 6/7ed? -- used R5, although if I ever knew why
I've forgotten. (And that's why at most 3 'register' declarations were
effective, using R2..R4, with at least R0&R1 left for expr eval.)

PDP-8 stores it into the first word of the callee routine. But since
the -8 supports at most 48K-octets of storage a conforming C89
implementation would be challenging and C99 out of the question.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.net