bunch of pedants

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Mar 16, 2008.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    read this:

    <begin quote>
    Any function in C may be recursive
    (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
    in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
    on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
    <end quote>

    This was written by an expert in C.

    True, there is no mention of a stack in their bible
    Fact is, there isn't any C implementations that don't use
    a stack to store the automatic variables.

    Up to now, this people are unable to put forward a single
    example of an implementation that doesn't use a hardware
    stack (maintained by a register in a contiguous memory
    addressing space)

    Their first "example" was ARM and some Risc processors.

    I proved them wrong.

    Then they started tripping with IBM mainframes. Nope, I showed
    them the documentation of the IBM compilers for mainframes
    where they describe the stack and its associated register (r13)

    Then they started with the 8051. I showed them that that processor
    has a stack (it has PUSH/POP instructions apparently) but it is
    too small, so some compilers use an external stack.

    Even if they have not a single example, they go on with bullshit of the
    style "but an implementation *could* exist that... blah blah blah"

    Facts are not important. The C standard does not mention a stack,
    and that is it. It is possible then to throw at unaware people that
    asks questions in this group sentences like
    "C has no stack"
    "There is no stack in C"

    Since they have no arguments, they discuss with tricks like

    1) After you have proved them yet another time wrong, they will
    answer with the eternal sentence "The standard doesn't mention a
    stack" and the discussion can start from the beginning

    2) After you have proved that the machine XYZ DOES have a stack,
    they say "But an implementation *could* exist" and the discussion
    can start from the beginning.

    I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them

    Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    stack" for them? Let it be.



    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
    jacob navia, Mar 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    Ian Collins Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    > read this:
    >

    If you think that, you really are on another planet.

    --
    Ian Collins.
    Ian Collins, Mar 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia wrote:
    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack.


    Many regulars never bother with this question, never deny nor affirm
    anything about C using a stack, and refuse to be part of your stupid
    baiting game. Kudos to them; shame on you.
    Martin Ambuhl, Mar 16, 2008
    #3
  4. jacob navia said:

    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack.


    No, the "regulars" go on denying that the C language specification requires
    the use of a stack, and this is perfectly true, because it doesn't. The
    fact that most (or possibly even all) implementations do use a stack is
    irrelevant. They could easily use some other data structure; the reason
    they *don't* is that it doesn't appear to have any advantages over a
    stack. But if someone discovers such an advantage, the C language won't
    stop them from exploiting it. The stack is a bit like gravity. Most (or
    possibly even all) C implementations operate in a gravitational field that
    tends to accelerate them towards the centre of the Earth at around
    9.8m/s/s. Nevertheless, nowhere in the C Standard will you find any such
    *requirement* imposed on C implementations, which is just as well for the
    future of space travel, right? In the same way, no *requirement* is
    imposed on C implementations to use a stack.


    > They should read this:
    >
    > <begin quote>
    > Any function in C may be recursive
    > (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    > variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    > strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    > caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
    > in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
    > on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
    > <end quote>
    >
    > This was written by an expert in C.


    Nevertheless, it is not normative text.

    <snip>

    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them


    If you read what we wrote, instead of what you think we're writing, that
    would make a big difference to these discussions.

    > Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    > stack" for them? Let it be.


    Good. The sooner you drop these ridiculous claims, the better for all
    concerned.

    --
    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
    Richard Heathfield, Mar 16, 2008
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    WANG Cong Guest

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:53:30 +0100,jacob navia wrote:

    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should read this:
    >
    > <begin quote>
    > Any function in C may be recursive
    > (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    > variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    > strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    > caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function; in
    > turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily on the
    > ease with which a stack can be maintained. <end quote>
    >
    > This was written by an expert in C.
    >
    > True, there is no mention of a stack in their bible Fact is, there isn't
    > any C implementations that don't use a stack to store the automatic
    > variables.
    >
    > Up to now, this people are unable to put forward a single example of an
    > implementation that doesn't use a hardware stack (maintained by a
    > register in a contiguous memory addressing space)
    >
    > Their first "example" was ARM and some Risc processors.
    >
    > I proved them wrong.
    >
    > Then they started tripping with IBM mainframes. Nope, I showed them the
    > documentation of the IBM compilers for mainframes where they describe
    > the stack and its associated register (r13)
    >
    > Then they started with the 8051. I showed them that that processor has a
    > stack (it has PUSH/POP instructions apparently) but it is too small, so
    > some compilers use an external stack.



    Thank you for these provings.

    >
    > Even if they have not a single example, they go on with bullshit of the
    > style "but an implementation *could* exist that... blah blah blah"
    >
    > Facts are not important. The C standard does not mention a stack, and
    > that is it. It is possible then to throw at unaware people that asks
    > questions in this group sentences like "C has no stack"
    > "There is no stack in C"


    Yes, the C99 standard doesn't even leave a word about stack.
    Stack is the implementation's thing, beyond the standard's defination.

    >
    > Since they have no arguments, they discuss with tricks like
    >
    > 1) After you have proved them yet another time wrong, they will
    > answer with the eternal sentence "The standard doesn't mention a
    > stack" and the discussion can start from the beginning
    >
    > 2) After you have proved that the machine XYZ DOES have a stack,
    > they say "But an implementation *could* exist" and the discussion
    > can start from the beginning.
    >
    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them
    >
    > Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    > stack" for them? Let it be.


    I would say standard C doesn't define the concept of stack, at least now,
    although nearly all implementations do.

    Please don't play word games.

    --
    Hi, I'm a .signature virus, please copy/paste me to help me spread
    all over the world.
    WANG Cong, Mar 16, 2008
    #5
  6. On 16 Mar, 04:53, jacob navia <> wrote:

    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them


    Starting a new thread on the topic is hardly reflective
    of your decision that the discussion is a waste of time.
    It appears to be the exact opposite, in fact.
    William Pursell, Mar 16, 2008
    #6
  7. jacob navia <> writes:
    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    > read this:
    >
    > <begin quote>
    > Any function in C may be recursive
    > (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    > variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    > strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    > caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
    > in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
    > on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
    > <end quote>
    >
    > This was written by an expert in C.


    And it wasn't worth your time either to identify the expert (it's from
    a paper written by Johnson and Ritchie) or to mention that it was
    published 30 years ago.

    > True, there is no mention of a stack in their bible
    > Fact is, there isn't any C implementations that don't use
    > a stack to store the automatic variables.
    >
    > Up to now, this people are unable to put forward a single
    > example of an implementation that doesn't use a hardware
    > stack (maintained by a register in a contiguous memory
    > addressing space)


    [...]

    > Then they started tripping with IBM mainframes. Nope, I showed
    > them the documentation of the IBM compilers for mainframes
    > where they describe the stack and its associated register (r13)


    I read the excerpt you posted from the documentation for *one* C
    compiler for *one* operating system on *one* IBM mainframe. It did
    not state that the "stack frames" are allocated contiguously, and
    another poster stated that in fact they are not. There's your
    example.

    [...]

    > Even if they have not a single example, they go on with bullshit of the
    > style "but an implementation *could* exist that... blah blah blah"


    How is it "bullshit"? Do you claim that such an implementation could
    not possibly exist? (I don't expect a straight answer to that
    question.)

    > Facts are not important. The C standard does not mention a stack,
    > and that is it.


    The fact that the C standard does not mention a stack is important
    (but apparently not to you).

    > It is possible then to throw at unaware people that
    > asks questions in this group sentences like
    > "C has no stack"
    > "There is no stack in C"


    I've addressed this in another thread.

    [snip]

    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them


    Then why did you start a new thread?

    > Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    > stack" for them? Let it be.


    I am not CBFalconer. Please do not try to put his words in my mouth,
    or mine in his. I do not say this to criticize him, or even
    necessarily to disagree with him, but to refute your apparent belief
    that everyone who disagrees with you must be making the same
    arguments.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Mar 16, 2008
    #7
  8. "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Most (or
    > possibly even all) C implementations operate in a gravitational field that
    > tends to accelerate them towards the centre of the Earth at around
    > 9.8m/s/s. Nevertheless, nowhere in the C Standard will you find any such
    > *requirement* imposed on C implementations, which is just as well for the
    > future of space travel, right?
    >

    Er, wasn't a Mars Rover stuck because of a buffer overrun in its C code?

    --
    Free games and programming goodies.
    http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
    Malcolm McLean, Mar 16, 2008
    #8
  9. On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:53:30 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
    > Since they have no arguments, they discuss with tricks like
    >
    > 1) After you have proved them yet another time wrong, they will
    > answer with the eternal sentence "The standard doesn't mention a
    > stack" and the discussion can start from the beginning


    That is a bogus argument. I've seen only one person try to use that. He
    shouldn't have, but you're wrong for ignoring everybody else because of
    it too.

    > 2) After you have proved that the machine XYZ DOES have a stack,
    > they say "But an implementation *could* exist" and the discussion
    > can start from the beginning.


    No, not "an implementation *could* exist", but "an implementation *does*
    exist". A specific implementation has been mentioned that doesn't use a
    stack, unless by stack you mean something different from what the OP
    meant in the thread you should've responded to.
    Harald van Dijk, Mar 16, 2008
    #9
  10. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    jacob navia wrote:

    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    > read this:


    C does not need to use a hardware stack, which was most probably
    what "CJ" meant, and the responses given for his statement were
    perfectly appropriate, until you decided to start another flamefest.

    > <begin quote>
    > Any function in C may be recursive
    > (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    > variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    > strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    > caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
    > in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
    > on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
    > <end quote>


    Note the crucial word: *suggest* . Not mandate.

    <snip>

    > Facts are not important. The C standard does not mention a stack,
    > and that is it. It is possible then to throw at unaware people that
    > asks questions in this group sentences like
    > "C has no stack"
    > "There is no stack in C"


    In the context of what CJ meant (i.e. that C imposed the requirement of
    a contiguous hardware stack), the answers were perfectly appropriate.

    <snip>

    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them
    >
    > Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    > stack" for them? Let it be.


    So you need to start another thread simply to say you won't discuss this
    further?

    Jacob, I don't think newbies are so stupid that they need some sort
    of "rescuing" by you. The vast majority of newbies are not even
    concerned with the stack. Those who ask specific questions (like CJ)
    are given the appropriate response. No one is saying "C has no stack".
    In fact Keith was written several excellent posts on the matter that
    elucidate the issue more clearly than you or I could. Why don't you
    give this a rest?
    santosh, Mar 16, 2008
    #10
  11. jacob navia

    Flash Gordon Guest

    jacob navia wrote, On 16/03/08 04:53:
    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    > read this:


    In the thread in question the OP asked if C "insisted" on a stack. The
    only meaning of "insisted" that I can conceive of applying in the
    question is that the use of a stack is mandated.

    > <begin quote>
    > Any function in C may be recursive
    > (without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
    > variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
    > strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
    > caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
    > in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
    > on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
    > <end quote>


    "suggest strongly" is a *much* weaker claim than "insist". In fact, by
    definition, a suggestion is not a mandated requirement.

    > This was written by an expert in C.


    Yes, and it agrees with the position taken by everyone but you at the
    start of the thread you are commenting on. If it disagreed it would say
    something like, "requre that a stack be used" rather than "strongly
    suggest that a stack be used".

    > True, there is no mention of a stack in their bible
    > Fact is, there isn't any C implementations that don't use
    > a stack to store the automatic variables.


    There are implementations where the processors HW stack is not used but
    instead a second stack using an ordinary index register is used. So
    using the term "the stack" is at the very least misleading on
    implementations with a contiguous block of memory being used to
    implement a stack which is independent from the HW stack of the
    processor. In fact, using the HW stack on the TMS320C25 as the "C stack"
    would not be possible because it is only 8 words deep! This is a
    separate point from whether C requires a stack, since it is recognisably
    a stack, just not *the* stack on the processor.

    <snip>

    > I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
    > repeat their bullshit without caring about what you answer to them
    >
    > Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    > stack" for them? Let it be.


    If you actually read what was written instead of assuming what people
    are going to write life would be easier.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Flash Gordon, Mar 16, 2008
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Martin Ambuhl <> wrote:
    >jacob navia wrote:
    >> The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack.

    >
    >Many regulars never bother with this question, never deny nor affirm
    >anything about C using a stack, and refuse to be part of your stupid
    >baiting game. Kudos to them; shame on you.


    But not you.
    Kenny McCormack, Mar 16, 2008
    #12
  13. Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >
    > "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Most (or
    >> possibly even all) C implementations operate in a gravitational field
    >> that
    >> tends to accelerate them towards the centre of the Earth at around
    >> 9.8m/s/s. Nevertheless, nowhere in the C Standard will you find any such
    >> *requirement* imposed on C implementations, which is just as well for the
    >> future of space travel, right?
    >>

    > Er, wasn't a Mars Rover stuck because of a buffer overrun in its C code?


    Yeah, but that problem was caused by a black hole*, which has no gravity
    as such.


    *Somewhere in the region of Redmond...
    ** gd&r
    Mark McIntyre, Mar 16, 2008
    #13
  14. santosh wrote:
    > jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >> Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
    >> stack" for them? Let it be.


    If only this were true...

    > Why don't you give this a rest?


    Because, as far as I can tell, he appears to be obsessed and to believe
    that everyone has it in for him. I was going to offer a more formal
    clinical description but its not worth the flamefest and insults that
    would ensue.

    --
    Mark McIntyre

    CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
    Mark McIntyre, Mar 16, 2008
    #14
  15. Malcolm McLean said:

    >
    > "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Most (or
    >> possibly even all) C implementations operate in a gravitational field
    >> that tends to accelerate them towards the centre of the Earth at around
    >> 9.8m/s/s. Nevertheless, nowhere in the C Standard will you find any such
    >> *requirement* imposed on C implementations, which is just as well for
    >> the future of space travel, right?
    >>

    > Er, wasn't a Mars Rover stuck because of a buffer overrun in its C code?


    All the more reason to promulgate techniques by which buffer overruns can
    be prevented.

    --
    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
    Richard Heathfield, Mar 16, 2008
    #15
  16. jacob navia

    Kaz Kylheku Guest

    On Mar 15, 9:53 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Up to now, this people are unable to put forward a single
    > example of an implementation that doesn't use a hardware
    > stack (maintained by a register in a contiguous memory
    > addressing space)


    You're insanely obsessed about this stack thing.

    > The C standard does not mention a stack,
    > and that is it. It is possible then to throw at unaware people that
    > asks questions in this group sentences like
    > "C has no stack"
    > "There is no stack in C"


    If you use ``stack'' to refer to anything in C, that is wrong, since
    whatever you are giving that name to doesn't precisely coincide with
    the stack.

    C has automatic storage, whose concept more broadly encompasses the
    state of the data processor. In actual implementations, automatic
    storage is implemented not only using the stack but also other storage
    areas such as registers, or even immediate operands within the machine
    code.

    A statement like ``the function arguments are stored in the stack'' is
    only correct if ``stack'' is redefined as a synonym for ``automatic
    storage'', which is a bad idea, since you need that word to refer to
    the machine-specific structure.

    It's a terrible idea to take a word with an existing meaning and then
    redefine it to have another meaning for something that is closely-
    related. Even worse is to then use the two meanings interchangeably in
    the same context.

    > Let it be.


    So that's what, ten paragraphs of letting it be? Good grief.
    Kaz Kylheku, Mar 16, 2008
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    Bartc Guest

    "jacob navia" <> wrote in message
    news:fri94j$p8c$...
    > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    > read this:


    The regulars are technically correct. But being technically correct is not
    always helpful.

    The problem is, someone posts a question about C and X, but X is not a term
    in the standard, so immediately it is denied that X is possible at all. End
    of post.

    Rather than seeing that X is actually meaningful in the context of practical
    implementations, and to which there may be a number of helpful replies.

    Or, maybe X is some assumption which cannot be true of 100% of C
    implementations, so the poster is wrong. End of post.

    In fact X may be true on most implementations -- or at least on 100% of the
    implementations the poster is interested in -- and again there may be useful
    replies to be made. After all someone may spend their entire working life on
    a system where X is true and they may well be interested in questions about
    X, where X is still general enough for this newsgroup.


    --
    Bart
    Bartc, Mar 16, 2008
    #17
  18. jacob navia

    Morris Dovey Guest

    jacob navia wrote:

    > Then they started tripping with IBM mainframes. Nope, I showed
    > them the documentation of the IBM compilers for mainframes
    > where they describe the stack and its associated register (r13)


    Admittedly, it's been a while since I wrote assembler for an IBM
    mainframe, but R13 had no push/pop capability. By convention (and
    only by convention) is was used to point to an area of storage
    (called a "SAVEAREA") retrieved by making a system call via
    programed interrupt (issuing an SVC) using code generated by a
    GETMAIN macro invocation. That system call was approximately
    analogous to a malloc() call.

    Unless there has been an addition to the control store microcode
    to implement a push/pop capability, any "stack" on that
    architecture is purely a software construct - meaning that there
    is a "stack" capability to exactly the same degree that my old
    Z80 system had a floating-point capability.

    If anyone on CLC has enough personal experience (or can look at a
    dump of an actual program), I'd be interested in learning exactly
    how this stack has been implemented. If it's too far from
    "topical" to post here, I'd welcome an e-mail.

    --
    Morris Dovey
    DeSoto Solar
    DeSoto, Iowa USA
    http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
    Morris Dovey, Mar 16, 2008
    #18
  19. jacob navia

    Jack Klein Guest

    On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:18:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
    <> wrote in comp.lang.c:

    > jacob navia said:
    >
    > > The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack.

    >
    > No, the "regulars" go on denying that the C language specification requires
    > the use of a stack, and this is perfectly true, because it doesn't. The
    > fact that most (or possibly even all) implementations do use a stack is


    [snip]

    Definitely not all. As for recursion, there are implementations for
    platforms where you must take the (admittedly non-standard) step of
    specifically marking a recursive function in the source, which causes
    the compiler to generate hideously expensive code to handle automatic
    objects in the function.

    --
    Jack Klein
    Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
    FAQs for
    comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
    comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/
    alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
    http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
    Jack Klein, Mar 16, 2008
    #19
  20. In article <5WaDj.24143$>,
    Bartc <> wrote:
    >
    >"jacob navia" <> wrote in message
    >news:fri94j$p8c$...
    >> The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
    >> read this:

    >
    >The regulars are technically correct. But being technically correct is not
    >always helpful.


    That statement, while undoubtedly true, is not the accepted dogma in
    this group. Here, people believe that being correct is a) all that
    matters and b) approved behavior, no matter how irrelevant that position
    makes them.

    I assume that the jerks here behave the same way in other fora in which
    they participate. And I often note just how far they would get,
    behaving like this, either in a real world help-oriented forum (such as
    the help board for a real, commercial product) or, even more on-point,
    in a forum associated with their work. The answer is, not very far; I
    know this from experience, as I often (intentionally, as a test) inject
    a bit of Usenet into it and see what kinds of reactions I get. Believe
    me, the regs here wouldn't survive a minute in the real world (a point
    often made by my esteemed colleagues).

    >The problem is, someone posts a question about C and X, but X is not a term
    >in the standard, so immediately it is denied that X is possible at all. End
    >of post.


    (rest of very good, insightful, post clipped, but not forgotten)

    The real problem is that, by now, we all understand that use of the
    "S word" in this newsgroup enflames the passions of the regulars. In
    much the same way as using, say, the "N word" does in other contexts, or
    the "C word" in yet others. Jacob knows this - he knows perfectly well
    how inflamatory the use of that word is here. Yet he persists.

    Does this mean I think he is wrong to do so? Of course not. There is
    no reason that use of such a simple English word should cause such panic
    and havoc. Yet we know that it does. At some point, in social
    development, blame starts shifting from the people who unreasonably take
    offense at words, to those using those words, such that, after
    sufficient time, we all assume that it is the person doing the enflaming
    who is to be blamed, rather than those who get enflamed. Such is life.

    I'm still trying to figure out just who, among the pantheon of Usenet
    Flame Warriors (see the URL given in other threads), best typifies
    Jacob. Haven't quite figured it out yet...
    Kenny McCormack, Mar 16, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nayt Grochowski
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    564
    Nayt Grochowski
    Dec 3, 2003
  2. David
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,951
    Vidar Petursson
    May 21, 2004
  3. jacob navia

    Pedants

    jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    121
    Views:
    3,020
    Richard Bos
    Jul 3, 2008
  4. rudolf

    Re: Pedants, please help on integer types

    rudolf, Aug 5, 2012, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    340
    rudolf
    Aug 5, 2012
  5. Keith Thompson

    Re: Pedants, please help on integer types

    Keith Thompson, Aug 5, 2012, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    424
    Keith Thompson
    Aug 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page