what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by ramyach@gmail.com, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hi friends,
    I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
    group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
    programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
    supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler. Or are there any other parallel C
    languages that have this feature?
    It would be more helpful if someone explains the differences
    among mpC, paralle C, parallel C in OpenMP and MPI. To which language
    does the following directives belong to.
    #pragma parallel
    #pragma pfor
    #pragma synchronize

    Thanks in advance
    Ramya
    , Nov 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    > I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    >running SGI Irix 6.5.


    You should probably take this question to comp.sys.sgi.misc

    >This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    >have any idea of parallel C languages. I looked into few posts in this
    >group. I could make out that there are several languages for parallel
    >programming and parallel C is one of them. I need to know if this is
    >supported by MIPS Pro C Compiler.


    No, the MIPSpro compilers do not support the Parallel C language.

    >Or are there any other parallel C
    >languages that have this feature?


    [OT]

    Here are some SGI links for you:

    "MIPSpro Auto-Parallelizing Option Programmer's Guide"

    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...&db=bks&cmd=toc&pth=/SGI_Developer/MPro_AP_PG

    You probably don't want to use that, though, as it is noticable
    extra cost. It's useful when you first start out, but once you see
    what kind of transformations it makes to your code, it is usually
    easier to put in the directives manually.


    "C Language Reference Manual"

    "Chapter 10. Multiprocessing Directives"
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...SGI_Developer/CLanguageRef/sgi_html/ch10.html

    "Chapter 11. Multiprocessing Advanced Features"
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...SGI_Developer/CLanguageRef/sgi_html/ch11.html

    In other words, you can put the directives in manually.
    Includes #pragma parallel, #pragma pfor, and #pragma synchronize .
    These are not from different languages: they are all pragmas
    that SGI uses to mark different aspects of parallel programming.

    These are supported by SGI's C, and C++. SGI's F77 (Fortran 77)
    multiprocessing directive support is documented at
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...e=/SGI_Developer/MproF77_PG/sgi_html/apb.html

    and F77's OpenMP directive support is documented at
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...=/SGI_Developer/MproF77_PG/sgi_html/ch05.html

    The F90 (Fortran 90) OpenMP support is documented at
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...GI_Developer/MPro7F90CD_RM/sgi_html/ch04.html


    "Message Passing Toolkit: MPI Programmer's Manual"

    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...&db=bks&cmd=toc&pth=/SGI_Developer/MPT_MPI_PM


    "Message Passing Toolkit: PVM Programmer's Guide"

    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...&db=bks&cmd=toc&pth=/SGI_Developer/MPT_PVM_PM


    Various SGI system manual pages:

    mpconf - multiprocessing configuration
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl...&fname=/usr/share/catman/p_man/cat3c/mpconf.z

    sysmp - multiprocessing (and realtime) controls
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl.../usr/share/catman/p_man/cat2/standard/sysmp.z

    pthreads - introduction to POSIX threads
    http://techpubs.sgi.com/library/tpl/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?cmd=getdoc&coll=0650&db=man&fname=5 pthreads
    --
    I am spammed, therefore I am.
    Walter Roberson, Nov 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > Hi friends,
    > I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    > running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    > have any idea of parallel C languages.


    Neither does standard C.

    http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    --
    Peter
    Peter Nilsson, Nov 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Jordan Abel Guest

    On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> Hi friends,
    >> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    >> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    >> have any idea of parallel C languages.

    >
    > Neither does standard C.
    >
    > http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt


    That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?

    The best I can find online is
    <ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"

    [When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]

    If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?
    Jordan Abel, Nov 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Simon Biber Guest

    Jordan Abel wrote:
    > On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    >
    >
    > That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    > charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
    >
    > The best I can find online is
    > <ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    > which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
    >
    > [When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    > asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    > is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    > so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
    >
    > If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


    Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters. It has
    always got along fine without one. The regular posters define what is
    allowable and not allowable.

    --
    Simon.
    Simon Biber, Nov 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Jordan Abel <> writes:
    > On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> Hi friends,
    >>> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    >>> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    >>> have any idea of parallel C languages.

    >>
    >> Neither does standard C.
    >>
    >> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    >
    > That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    > charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


    There is none.

    [...]

    > If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


    I'm not sure that it would be practical to create one and have it
    accepted by -- well, by whoever would need to accept it for it to
    become "official". We seem to have a general (though not universal)
    consensus about what's topical.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <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.
    Keith Thompson, Nov 20, 2005
    #6
  7. On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:43:15 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
    <> wrote:

    >On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> Hi friends,
    >>> I need to write a parallel code in 'C' on the server that is
    >>> running SGI Irix 6.5. This server supports MIPS Pro C compiler. I don't
    >>> have any idea of parallel C languages.

    >>
    >> Neither does standard C.
    >>
    >> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    >
    >That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    >charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?


    There isn't one - CLC predates the existence of the charter scheme.
    The welcome message, FAQ, other regularly posted notes and topicality
    guidelines provided by regulars constitute the equivalent of a
    charter.

    >The best I can find online is
    ><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    >which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"


    This is merely the group description.

    >[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    >asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    >is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    >so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]


    You're mistaken. The nonexistence of a written consitution doesn't
    prevent the group having one, any more than it prevented the UK from
    having one for at least a millenium longer than CLC.

    >If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?


    No.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Mark McIntyre, Nov 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Jordan Abel Guest

    On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <> wrote:
    > Jordan Abel wrote:
    >> On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    >>
    >>
    >> That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    >> charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
    >>
    >> The best I can find online is
    >> <ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    >> which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
    >>
    >> [When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    >> asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    >> is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    >> so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
    >>
    >> If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

    >
    > Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.


    And also that of Standard C.

    Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
    ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
    precise.

    My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
    about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
    to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
    off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
    least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
    on-topic for csc and not clc]

    which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
    on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.

    > It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
    > what is allowable and not allowable.


    The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
    is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
    only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
    decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
    one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
    has developed into a convention?
    Jordan Abel, Nov 20, 2005
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Jordan Abel <> wrote:
    ....
    >The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
    >is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
    >only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
    >decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
    >one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
    >has developed into a convention?


    Who just wandered into a mosque and asked "Why is Christianity O/T here?" ?
    Kenny McCormack, Nov 20, 2005
    #9
  10. jacob navia Guest

    Jordan Abel wrote:
    > On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <> wrote:
    >
    >>Jordan Abel wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    >>>charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
    >>>
    >>>The best I can find online is
    >>><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    >>>which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
    >>>
    >>>[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    >>>asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    >>>is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    >>>so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
    >>>
    >>>If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?

    >>
    >>Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

    >
    >
    > And also that of Standard C.
    >
    > Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
    > ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
    > precise.
    >
    > My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
    > about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
    > to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
    > off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
    > least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
    > on-topic for csc and not clc]
    >
    > which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
    > on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
    >
    >
    >>It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
    >>what is allowable and not allowable.

    >
    >
    > The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
    > is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
    > only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
    > decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
    > one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
    > has developed into a convention?


    I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

    This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
    This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
    critics of the language, are on topic here.
    jacob navia, Nov 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Jordan Abel Guest

    On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Jordan Abel wrote:
    >> On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Jordan Abel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On 2005-11-20, Peter Nilsson <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>That document does not claim to have the 'legal' status of a newsgroup
    >>>>charter. Anyone know where the comp.lang.c charter can be found?
    >>>>
    >>>>The best I can find online is
    >>>><ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/comp/comp.lang.c>
    >>>>which contains a single-line description, "Discussion about C"
    >>>>
    >>>>[When i look on google it looks like i'm opening a whole can of worms by
    >>>>asking this, but it has to be said. Claims on a newsgroup that something
    >>>>is forbidden as off-topic make an implicit claim that the charter says
    >>>>so, which seems at best misleading and at worst dishonest.]
    >>>>
    >>>>If clc doesn't have a charter, don't you think it needs one?
    >>>
    >>>Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

    >>
    >>
    >> And also that of Standard C.
    >>
    >> Google's earliest clc message is dated 5 November 1986 - Though
    >> ironically, it quotes a draft version of the standard, 86-017 to be
    >> precise.
    >>
    >> My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic. I got to thinking
    >> about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
    >> to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
    >> off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
    >> least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
    >> on-topic for csc and not clc]
    >>
    >> which leaves open the question of just _WHERE_ such a thing _WOULD_ be
    >> on-topic. I believe the specific issue was printf extensions.
    >>
    >>
    >>>It has always got along fine without one. The regular posters define
    >>>what is allowable and not allowable.

    >>
    >>
    >> The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
    >> is allowed, you'll always have dissent. And is it really _right_ That
    >> only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
    >> decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
    >> one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
    >> has developed into a convention?

    >
    > I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.
    >
    > This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
    > This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
    > critics of the language, are on topic here.


    I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?
    Jordan Abel, Nov 20, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Jordan Abel <> wrote:
    >On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >> I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.


    >> This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
    >> This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
    >> critics of the language, are on topic here.


    >I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


    This is a really bad time to run an RFD. The entire RFD / CFV mechanism
    is undergoing a -considerable- shakeup, and no RFDs are being
    accepted for now (and possibly not for quite a number of months.)

    The quick summary is that the people who administer the official
    mechanisms at the moment want out and have announced their firm
    commitment to resign, and are pushing for a complete rework of the
    structure in order to have a viable organization to hand the reigns
    over to. news.groups has the discussions.
    --
    Many food scientists have reported chocolate to be the single most
    craved food. -- Northwestern University, 2001
    Walter Roberson, Nov 20, 2005
    #12
  13. On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:11:36 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
    <> wrote:

    >On 2005-11-20, Simon Biber <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Indeed, clc predates the introduction of newsgroup charters.

    >
    >And also that of Standard C.
    >
    >My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.


    Its an interesting question. The answer is very simple - because that
    what it is. There's no better answer, over the last 2 decades it has
    generally been agreed that the purpose of CLC is to discuss the use of
    standard C.

    >I got to thinking
    >about this because a recent crosspost between clc and comp.std.c seemed
    >to have the c.s.c-ers thinking that something [which is _clearly_
    >off-topic here] would be on-topic for clc, and, oddly, there was at
    >least one voice for the reverse [i.e. that the same thread would be
    >on-topic for csc and not clc]


    Yes, there are sometimes things which do fall into that interesting
    camp.

    >The problem is that without a _clear_ and _agreed-on_ definition of what
    >is allowed, you'll always have dissent.


    The point you're missing is that it /does/ have a clear and agreed on
    defintion. Its just not written down.

    This isn't uncommon - I mentioned the constitution of the UK earlier.
    We seem to have managed ok for several hundred years.

    >And is it really _right_ That
    >only "ISO Certified 98.99% Pure" topics should be discussed here? Who
    >decided that? Was it a consensus that people actually agreed on, or did
    >one person just make the claim and people assumed he was right, and it
    >has developed into a convention?


    Why do you actually need to know? The point is, the topic /is/
    defined. If you want to change it, feel free to try.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Mark McIntyre, Nov 20, 2005
    #13
  14. On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:42:50 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Jordan Abel
    <> wrote:

    >On 2005-11-20, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I am a regular poster here and I have a different view.

    >

    to the best of my knowledge, Jacob is in a minority of at best one, at
    worst a handful, amongst the regulars.

    >I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?


    Not interested.

    If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
    buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
    decades.



    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Mark McIntyre, Nov 20, 2005
    #14
  15. Malcolm Guest

    "Jordan Abel" <> wrote
    >
    >> This group should discuss the C language, not a C ISO 89 subset.
    >> This means that questions like extensions, new developments,
    >> critics of the language, are on topic here.

    >
    > I move that we have a vote. Someone post a RFD or something?
    >

    For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.
    Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
    to ever be widely implemented, which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
    the language, and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
    important in the near future.

    Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
    inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
    between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.

    However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
    point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
    isn't on-topic.
    Malcolm, Nov 20, 2005
    #15
  16. On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
    >point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
    >isn't on-topic.


    The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
    or something like that. If it proves useful and informative, people
    will move over to it, and CLC will die away. If it proves useless, and
    uninformative people will return to CLC.
    --
    Mark McIntyre
    CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
    CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
    Mark McIntyre, Nov 20, 2005
    #16
  17. Mark McIntyre wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:18 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , "Malcolm"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> However exactly how to redefine topicality is a good question - there is no
    >> point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
    >> isn't on-topic.

    >
    > The simplest solution is to create a new group comp.lang.nonstandard-c
    > or something like that.


    Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?

    Bjørn

    [snip]
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Augestad?=, Nov 20, 2005
    #17
  18. pete Guest

    Bjørn Augestad wrote:
    >
    > Mark McIntyre wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > The simplest solution is to create a new group
    > > comp.lang.nonstandard-c
    > > or something like that.

    >
    > Good idea, how about comp.lang.posix.c?


    I think comp.unix.programmer
    would be a better name to call that one.

    http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

    --
    pete
    pete, Nov 20, 2005
    #18
  19. Randy Howard Guest

    Malcolm wrote
    (in article
    <dlqju1$24d$-infra.bt.com>):

    > For a long time it made perfect sense to discuss only ANSI C.


    Or ISO C 90.

    > Now we've got two developments. It has become obvious that C99 is unlikely
    > to ever be widely implemented,


    That's mostly because it offers almost nothing of value to
    convince people to do the work to adopt it, and it directly
    conflicts with widespread extensions, most notably those of gcc,
    which means it was stillborn the day it was published, whether
    they realized it at the time or not.

    > which changes the status of ANSI vis a vis
    > the language,


    Forget about ANSI, it's not even in the picture anymore. Blame
    the current state of affairs on ISO and lack of understanding of
    how reality meets the dream of a standards group.

    > and parallel programming is going to become a lot more
    > important in the near future.


    It already is, and has been for quite some time.

    > Parallel programming will probably rejuvenate C because of the problems
    > inherent in trying to pass objects and other high-level data structures
    > between processes. That is something the newsgroup will probably welcome.


    Parallel programming today pretty much ignores passing between
    processes (unless on different systems over the wire), and
    focuses on data use (and sharing) within a single process and
    multiple threads. C with extensions is one way this is done
    commonly, however if that is your bag, then you should be
    discussing it in a forum filled with people that focus on it
    actively, such as those in comp.programming.threads.

    There is no reason to drag a group into that sort of discussion
    when a better one already exists. Just as there is no reason to
    discuss high end graphics programming here when there are better
    forums.

    Just as monolithic design is bad in most software engineering,
    it's also bad in Usenet group scope. I suspect that more often
    than not this desire to lump everything into clc is due to not
    wanting to read multiple newsgroups rather than some well
    thought out rational reason.

    > there is no
    > point regs engaging in flame wars with each other about what is and what
    > isn't on-topic.


    That much is certainly true.


    --
    Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
    "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
    who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
    Randy Howard, Nov 20, 2005
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    Mark McIntyre <> wrote:
    ....
    >Not interested.
    >
    >If you want to change the topic, go form your own group, stop
    >buggering about with ones that have got along quite happily for
    >decades.


    Do you even come close to realizing how much like either a spoiled child
    or, (worse) a religious fundie, you sound like?
    Kenny McCormack, Nov 20, 2005
    #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.

Share This Page