miscompilation of volatiles?

[Richard Bos]

But apparently not permitted here by some pedants..

Nota bene: _here_.

Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

But apparently not permitted here by some pedants..

Note that 'here' means c.l.c, where those things are off-topic.

 

[Chris Hills]

Note that 'here' means c.l.c, where those things are off-topic.

Only to you and a few other pedants but not to the rest of us.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Chris Hills wrote:

But [extensions are] apparently not permitted here by some pedants..

Note that 'here' means c.l.c, where those things are off-topic.

Only to you and a few other pedants but not to the rest of us.

A recent thread was devoted entirely to discussing where the topicality
line should be drawn. IIRC you did not contribute significantly to that
thread, despite being an active poster at the time. It would not be
unreasonable to conclude that you have nothing positive to say on the
subject, so why this constant carping? If you *do* have a proposal for a
fresh look at topicality, okay, fine, let's hear it and let's discuss it.

But every time this is suggested to you, you go very quiet.

Are you going to go very quiet this time, too?

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills said:

Chris Hills wrote:

But [extensions are] apparently not permitted here by some pedants..

Note that 'here' means c.l.c, where those things are off-topic.

Only to you and a few other pedants but not to the rest of us.

A recent thread was devoted entirely to discussing where the topicality
line should be drawn. IIRC you did not contribute significantly to that
thread, despite being an active poster at the time. It would not be
unreasonable to conclude that you have nothing positive to say on the
subject, so why this constant carping? If you *do* have a proposal for a
fresh look at topicality, okay, fine, let's hear it and let's discuss it.

But every time this is suggested to you, you go very quiet.

Are you going to go very quiet this time, too?

Yes.. Because I have a life, lots of worth to do and I don't have the
time to argue every line and coma with a pedant. IT will be pointless.

Besides you and CJF have managed to frighten off most to the others who
don't agree with you.

Most of the noise is you and your group shouting OT which is quite
negative and usually unhelpful. It is just as well most other NG's are
not that bad.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Chris Hills said:

Chris Hills wrote:

But [extensions are] apparently not permitted here by some
pedants..

Note that 'here' means c.l.c, where those things are off-topic.

Only to you and a few other pedants but not to the rest of us.

A recent thread was devoted entirely to discussing where the
topicality line should be drawn. IIRC you did not contribute
significantly to that thread, despite being an active poster at the
time. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that you have nothing
positive to say on the subject, so why this constant carping? If you
*do* have a proposal for a fresh look at topicality, okay, fine,
let's hear it and let's discuss it. But every time this is suggested to
you, you go very quiet.

Are you going to go very quiet this time, too?

Yes.. Because I have a life, lots of worth to do and I don't have the
time to argue every line and coma with a pedant. IT will be
pointless.
Besides you and CJF have managed to frighten off most to the others
who don't agree with you.

You're missing/ignoring something important: at that time RH voted for
broadening the topicallity of this group!
He was in a minority though, at least partly due to the fact that _you_ did
not voice your opinion at all.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Yes.. Because I have a life, lots of worth to do and I don't have the
time to argue every line and coma with a pedant. IT will be pointless.

If you were prepared to say what topicality conventions you would like to
see in this group, others here might or might not agree with you. If
enough people did agree with you, presumably we could change the
conventions to ones more to your liking. If you are not prepared to say
what topicality conventions you would like to see in this group, however,
then nobody can change the conventions to suit you because nobody knows
what suits you.

Besides you and CJF

Er, *who*?

have managed to frighten off most to the others who
don't agree with you.

Let me guess - they've told you this in email, right?

But in fact a great many people disagree with me in this newsgroup all the
time - and I am on record as saying that I would like the topicality
conventions relaxed slightly.

Most of the noise is you and your group

What group? I don't *have* a group. You are beginning to sound like a
Nilges clone.

shouting OT

Please demonstrate this. I don't deny that I occasionally point out
off-topicality occasionally, but I don't shout about it and I don't think
I actually do it all that often, certainly when compared to the topical
technical responses I write (or would be writing if I weren't spending the
time responding to you).

which is quite negative and usually unhelpful.

You claim that I am unhelpful, but I have helped a great many people. I
could perhaps help more people if I weren't distracted by your snide
comments. For some time, I have been reluctantly approaching the
conclusion that you are trolling on this subject of topicality, because
you complain about an overly restrictive convention but won't reveal what
convention you would like to see.

It is just as well most other NG's are not that bad.

I like this one just fine, thanks.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Joachim Schmitz said:

Chris Hills wrote:

You're missing/ignoring something important: at that time RH voted for
broadening the topicallity of this group!
He was in a minority though, at least partly due to the fact that _you_
did not voice your opinion at all.

Um, actually, to be fair to Chris, he did express an opinion. I just looked
at the results summary, and there was indeed an entry for Chris Hills. It
seemed that he had much the same views on topicality that I do.

The difference appears to be that I'm prepared to accept the majority view,
whereas Chris is not.

 

[Keith Thompson]

A recent thread was devoted entirely to discussing where the topicality
line should be drawn.

[...]

Can you remind me (and others) of the subject line of that thread?
I tried to find it recently, but wasn't able to come up with a good
search term (mostly because I was insufficiently patient).

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

A recent thread was devoted entirely to discussing where the topicality
line should be drawn.

[...]

Can you remind me (and others) of the subject line of that thread?
I tried to find it recently, but wasn't able to come up with a good
search term (mostly because I was insufficiently patient).

The discussion thread was "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?"
and you'll find the first article somewhere in late September 2007.

I posted a summary of the thread separately, under "Topicality discussion -
summary" on 2 October 2007.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

I see your point.  In that case it is depressing that the standard
describes a language that is useless for implementing operating
systems and embedded systems -- domains where C dominates and has no
obvious successors.

There was never a dialect of C in which you could write every single
line of code of an operating system. This was true even before
standardization.

For instance, the language described by Kernighan and Ritchie in the
1978 edition of _The C Programming Language_ couldn't, just by itself,
be used to implement UNIX on a PDP-11.

How would you set up interrupts, save and restore the machine context
to switch from one task to another?

(And note that there was no volatile back then: not in the language,
not in the compiler that built UNIX).

Why would the standard try to describe a dialect which never existed?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Yes.. Because I have a life, lots of worth to do and I don't have the
time to argue every line and coma with a pedant.

So to be clear - you feel perfectly able to waste your time complaining,
but too lazy to help actually solve the problem - is that about right?

Most of the noise is you and your group shouting OT

Riiight. And the rest is you and the trolls screeching about how unfair
life is and how their pet compiler / OS / toolset ought to be topical.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Given that practically /all/ operating systems and the vast majority of
embedded systems use C, how can your statement possibly be true?

"standard"

Few if any of those systems you mention use "standard C" which the likes
of RH and CBF would deign to discuss here.

Actually, I suspect a fair number of those systems do, in fact, use
"standard C", plus extensions. You know, extensions, things
expressly allowed by C.

But apparently not permitted here by some pedants..

Correct, as this group is about C, not about extensions. This has never
been unclear, has it?

 

[CBFalconer]

So to be clear - you feel perfectly able to waste your time
complaining, but too lazy to help actually solve the problem -
is that about right?


Riiight. And the rest is you and the trolls screeching about
how unfair life is and how their pet compiler / OS / toolset
ought to be topical.

One of the finest summaries yet found.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Joachim Schmitz said:


Um, actually, to be fair to Chris, he did express an opinion. I just looked
at the results summary, and there was indeed an entry for Chris Hills. It
seemed that he had much the same views on topicality that I do.

The difference appears to be that I'm prepared to accept the majority view,
whereas Chris is not.

I wonder if it's really the majority view, or the view of an extremely
vocal and extremely aggressive minority...

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Er, *who*?


Let me guess - they've told you this in email, right?

Complete delusion. Every day of the week this group chews up newbies and
spits them out again, never to darken clc's door again. Only someone
completely out of touch with reality could fail to see this.

But in fact a great many people disagree with me in this newsgroup all the
time - and I am on record as saying that I would like the topicality
conventions relaxed slightly.

Here we go again... Heathfield is like the angelic-looking choir-boy who
was pulling a face a split-second before you turned to look at him.

What group? I don't *have* a group. You are beginning to sound like a
Nilges clone.

Playing with words, Heathfield's favorite game. It may not be a group
people formally sign up to, but of course there's a Clique, and
Heathfield is the source, center and ruler of it. He treats clc like his
own personal fiefdom.

I like this one just fine, thanks.

Indeed.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Riiight. And the rest is you and the trolls screeching about how unfair
life is and how their pet compiler / OS / toolset ought to be topical.

Yes, of course, the bad old trolls who actually care about using C in
the real world.

When the lunatics are in charge, it's the sane who seem strange.

 

[Richard]

[snips]

"standard"

Few if any of those systems you mention use "standard C" which the likes
of RH and CBF would deign to discuss here.

Actually, I suspect a fair number of those systems do, in fact, use
"standard C", plus extensions. You know, extensions, things
expressly allowed by C.

The objections you find extensions are not that these things are not
allowed by C, bur, rather, that they are not topical, as they are not
actually _part of_ C.

One could, theoretically, write a C extension to control vibrators via
cell phones; this would not make sex play topical for c.l.c.

No, But the code to control the device should be. Duh.

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

Given that practically /all/ operating systems and the vast majority of
embedded systems use C, how can your statement possibly be true?

"standard"

Few if any of those systems you mention use "standard C" which the likes
of RH and CBF would deign to discuss here.

Actually, I suspect a fair number of those systems do, in fact, use
"standard C", plus extensions. You know, extensions, things
expressly allowed by C.

The objections you find extensions are not that these things are not
allowed by C, bur, rather, that they are not topical, as they are not
actually _part of_ C.

One could, theoretically, write a C extension to control vibrators via
cell phones; this would not make sex play topical for c.l.c.

No, But the code to control the device should be. Duh.

Exactly....