what parallel C language does MIPS Pro C Compiler support?

K

Kenny McCormack

Mark McIntyre said:
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.

I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
dirty, world, but always entertaining), while something like "clc.esoteric"
or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing the totally
useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.

The point is that the name means something. People come here to discuss
real world C (imagine that - coming to a newsgroup named "comp.lang.c" to
discuss real world C) and are gobsmacked when they find out that the
natural obvious newsgroup name has been hijacked by a bunch of religious
loonies.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Randy Howard said:
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.

That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
sometimes across multiple sites. But this kind of thing is already
discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
comp.distributed.

Since the mechanisms for doing this aren't part of the C language (for
example, you can use MPI from C, from Fortran, and probably from other
languages), it doesn't usually make much sense to discuss them in
comp.lang.c.

If parallism were ever added to the C language, of course it would
become topical in comp.lang.c. If you want to help make that happen,
comp.std.c might be a good place to start. I suspect the response
will be that it's unnecessary, since the add-on libraries already
exist, but you'rew welcome to try. (That's a generic "you", not
directed at anyone in particular.)
 
J

Jordan Abel

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

Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
written down, it has never been subject to a vote.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Kenny McCormack said:
I think most of us see it the other way. That CLC is the logical name for
a newsgroup about discussion of C as practiced (in the real, sometimes
dirty, world, but always entertaining),

Right. And in the real world, C is quite often selected because of its
astonishingly high level of portability.
while something like
"clc.esoteric" or "clc.pure" would be a reasonable thing for discussing
the totally useless but academically pure version that you seem to favor.

Totally useless it may be, but it pays the mortgage for a very large number
of people.
The point is that the name means something.

Indeed it does:

comp -> computing
lang -> language
c -> C

Nothing in there about MIPS, Windows, Linux, threads, sockets, or all the
rest of it. Just C.
 
R

Randy Howard

Keith Thompson wrote
(in article said:
That depends on the field, I suppose. On the systems I work with,
most of the parallelism involves cooperating processes running across
hundreds or thousands of nodes, with several CPUs per node -- and
sometimes across multiple sites.

Of course, fair point. I was thinking of fork() and friends
when I wrote that, and completely forgot to mention parallel in
the sense you did. Probably because I have spent a lot of time
writing pthread code in recent years, and almost zero time
writing MPI code.
But this kind of thing is already
discussed in comp.parallel, comp.parallel.mpi, comp.sys.super, and
comp.distributed.

Indeed.
 
R

Rouben Rostamian

Clearly, it's either not agreed-on, or it's agreed-on but vague enough
that there are differences in interpretation. Not only has it not been
written down, it has never been subject to a vote.

CLC is an excellent resource but in my opinion it can benefit
from a name change -- something like comp.lang.c.iso will
reflect better its purpose and help reduce the incessant
discussions of topicality and lynching of newbies.

To address your question of how the current rules were
developed, the following allegory explains it very well.
I don't mean it in the way of disrespect to any readers
of this group. I don't remember where I got it; it's
not /my/ translation.

--
Rouben Rostamian

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "De banaan wordt bespreekbaar", cultuurverandering in
ambtelijk en politiek Groningen. door Tom Pauka en
Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh en van Ditmar, 1988)

Translated: "The banana becomes open to discussion", cultural changes
in administrative and political Groningen (city in Netherlands) by
Tom Pauka and Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh and van Ditmar, 1988)]

Take a cage with apes. In the cage we hang a banana on a string,
and put stairs under it. Before long an ape goes to the stairs
towards the banana, but as soon as it even touches the stairs,
all apes are sprayed with water. After a while the same ape or
another one makes another attempt, with the same result: all
apes are sprayed. If later another ape tries to climb the
stairs, the others will try to prevent it.

Now we take one ape from the cage and put in a new one. The new
ape sees the banana, and wants to climb the stairs. To his
horror all other apes attack him. After another attempt he
knows: if he wants to climb the stairs, he is beaten up. Then we
remove a second ape and replace it by another new one. The
newcomer goes to the stairs and gets beaten up. The previous
new ape takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

A third old ape is replaced by a third new one. The new one
makes it to the stairs and get beaten up as well. Two of the
apes who beat him, have no idea why you may not climb the stairs.

We replace the fourth old ape, and the fifth, etc. until all
apes which have been sprayed with water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever tries to climb the stairs.

"But Sir, why not?"

"Because that's the way we do things here, lad."
 
P

Peter Nilsson

Jordan said:
...
My question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic.

Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
discus
non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to gain
another one of
those groups?
 
J

Jordan Abel

Because there are (waving hands) 50 million groups around that already
discus non-standard C. What is the point of sacrificing clc just to
gain another one of those groups?

A group for general C discussion. If you want a group for talking about
ISO C only, why not make groups comp.lang.c.iso90 comp.lang.c.iso99?

This newsgroup's charter is not in writing and has never been subject to
a vote. From what does its authority derive?
 
P

pete

Jordan Abel wrote:
This newsgroup's charter is not in writing
and has never been subject to
a vote. From what does its authority derive?

Mob rule, and that's the way we like it.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Jordan Abel said:
Mob rule requires a vote.

Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :)

In fact, though, the authority of this group derives from the expertise of
those who contribute to it. If you successfully change the function of the
group, it will almost certainly lead to the loss to the Usenet community of
much of that expertise.

As someone else rightly said elsethread, what is to be gained by turning
over comp.lang.c to implementation-specific issues? Are these issues not
already amply catered for by groups such as comp.unix.programmer,
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, and so
on?
 
J

Jordan Abel

Jordan Abel said:

Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :)

Recount! [j/k]
In fact, though, the authority of this group derives from the expertise of
those who contribute to it. If you successfully change the function of the
group, it will almost certainly lead to the loss to the Usenet community of
much of that expertise.

This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"
As someone else rightly said elsethread, what is to be gained by turning
over comp.lang.c to implementation-specific issues?

that's not what i said and you know it. All i'm asking is for people to
stop whining about stuff being off-topic if they have no basis for it.
Are these issues not
already amply catered for by groups such as comp.unix.programmer,
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, and so
on?

You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Jordan Abel said:
Jordan Abel said:

Presumably this is a reference to the word "democracy". As we all know,
democracy is "one man, one vote". Well, I'm the man with the vote, and I
vote we stick to ISO C. :)

Recount! [j/k]

Okay. Recount complete. Result unchanged.
This comes from the still unproven presumption that a majority would
leave if people stopped whining about something that is, according to
any actual description in writing of the newsgroup, and any reasonable
interpretation of "comp.lang.c" given no pre-existing information,
on-topic, being "off-topic"

It's hardly an unproven presumption. Look what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they relaxed their topicality rules. The place basically fell apart.
It took a lot of work to turn it back into a useful group.
that's not what i said and you know it.

Well, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth; I'm merely responding to
your point about "authority", in the context of your earlier statement, "My
question is, _why_ is only standard C on-topic."
All i'm asking is for people to
stop whining about stuff being off-topic if they have no basis for it.

It seems to me that the original question in this thread was a reasonable
question to ask here, and that the answer "it's off-topic" is a reasonable
answer too, albeit not as helpful as Walter Roberson's reply which
mentioned a more suitable newsgroup.
You are so asking for a smart-ass "Correct. they're not."

Please moderate your language; this is a family show. Thanks. If those other
groups are indeed inadequately serving the needs of their users despite
being dedicated to their platforms, how much more inadequately comp.lang.c
would serve those needs! The lack of experts in a particular group does not
imply that some other group will have more experts in the field covered by
that group. And if those other groups /are/ adequately serving the needs of
their users, the point is academic anyway.
 
J

Jack Klein

Jordan said:
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 have no proof, but your question makes me think that you are
relatively new to usenet.

I've been here for a while, and I've seen good groups destroyed by
being swamped by off-topic posts.

It was perhaps five or six years ago that comp.lang.c++ was nearly
destroyed by becoming yet another Visual C++/Windows programming
group. I know I stopped reading and participating, and quite a few of
the more knowledgeable regulars disappeared as well. It was only by
the determined effort of a group of regulars that the group was saved.

Is it really _right_? I think so, and I'll tell you why. Literally
some of the most knowledgeable experts on C and C++ in the world help
others on comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++. That includes, not
infrequently, members of the language standards committees. There is
plenty of historical evidence that these are the first to leave when a
group gets polluted by too much off-topic material.

These groups are far too valuable as resources to be spoiled. For
every poster who whines that "you can't write a real world program in
standard C (or C++)", there are many more who realize that you can't
write any program at all in C or C++ without using standard C or C++,
and usually far more than you use any extensions or third party
library.

And as for what the group "should" be about, that's spelled out by the
name: "comp.lang.c" is nothing but an abbreviation for "computer
language C". And there is one and only one internationally recognized
definition of the C programming language, the ANSI/ISO/IEC standard.
 
J

Jack Klein

Jordan said:
Jordan Abel 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.

But how do you define "the C language"? By what you want it to be? By
what I want it to be? By what Microsoft wants it to be? In technical
discussions, a term without a precise definition is meaningless.

There is one internationally recognized definition of "the C
language". It has been ratified by several international standards
organizations, and the national standards bodies of most of the
nations most involved in computer programming.

So we don't have to accept your definition, or mine, we have an
objective standard definition to point to.
 
K

Keith Thompson

From: "De banaan wordt bespreekbaar", cultuurverandering in
ambtelijk en politiek Groningen. door Tom Pauka en
Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh en van Ditmar, 1988)

Translated: "The banana becomes open to discussion", cultural changes
in administrative and political Groningen (city in Netherlands) by
Tom Pauka and Rein Zunderdorp (Nijgh and van Ditmar, 1988)]

Take a cage with apes. In the cage we hang a banana on a string,
and put stairs under it. Before long an ape goes to the stairs
towards the banana, but as soon as it even touches the stairs,
all apes are sprayed with water. After a while the same ape or
another one makes another attempt, with the same result: all
apes are sprayed. If later another ape tries to climb the
stairs, the others will try to prevent it.

Now we take one ape from the cage and put in a new one. The new
ape sees the banana, and wants to climb the stairs. To his
horror all other apes attack him. After another attempt he
knows: if he wants to climb the stairs, he is beaten up. Then we
remove a second ape and replace it by another new one. The
newcomer goes to the stairs and gets beaten up. The previous
new ape takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

A third old ape is replaced by a third new one. The new one
makes it to the stairs and get beaten up as well. Two of the
apes who beat him, have no idea why you may not climb the stairs.

We replace the fourth old ape, and the fifth, etc. until all
apes which have been sprayed with water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no ape ever tries to climb the stairs.

"But Sir, why not?"

"Because that's the way we do things here, lad."

A good analogy, if you replace "the ape is beaten up" with "the ape is
told where to find another cage where he can get his bananas".
 
?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn_Augestad?=

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


I guess you're right, but c.u.p. has so much more than POSIX C and
threading stuff is mostly discussed in comp.programming.threads. At the
same time, the heaviest C expertise is in c.l.c. Having just one place
to discuss all parts of POSIX C would be nice, at least for me.

Bjørn
 
D

Dik T. Winter

> 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.

Actually the first message in this newsgroup dates from 22 October 1982.
But that was before the grand newsgroup renaming, and at that time the
group was called 'net.lang.c'.
> 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?

In the course of time the restriction of clc to non platform-specific
uses grew in the course of time. Mainly because platform-specific
newsgroups emerged and so there was no need to have such discussions
in this newsgroup. If you look at early messages you will find that
*most* are about very platform-specific questions (Unix C). And although
most of the time it is written that only standard C is on-topic, in my
opinion that is not entirely true. In my opinion K&R C is also on-topic.
More so because in many cases that explains why things are as they are
in C, and also some of the coding people may find in programs that are
available.
 
J

Jordan Abel

Jordan Abel said:

It's hardly an unproven presumption. Look what happened to comp.lang.c++
when they relaxed their topicality rules. The place basically fell apart.
It took a lot of work to turn it back into a useful group.

I meant the claim that there is a majority who agree with you at all,
and who consider questions other than strict c89/c99-based ones to be
off-topic at all. Note that it's hardly unreasonable, just unproven. And
it's equally reasonable that the opposite is true.
Please moderate your language; this is a family show.

Sorry, i'm not used to thinking of that expression as being foul
language at all - there are regional and local differences [and, this
being a college town...]
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top