C
Clever Monkey
[Sarcastic example I came up with removed.]Man said:
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=C+language+infinite+loop>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=C+language+infinite+loop>
M
Markus Wolf
Keith said:
Maybe you could send me the code in a private message for testing. I've
got a machine here that does the infinite loop in a couple of hours.
-- Mark.
U
U
I have written a program for you, that contains an infinite loop, but it
wouldn't be right to show you the code until its test run is complete.
[/QUOTE]
I'm almost afraid to ask... what's the progress?
Regards,
U
K
Keith Thompson
U said:
I'm almost afraid to ask... what's the progress?
Regards,
U[/QUOTE]
U! It's you! Where have u been?
C
Chris Dollin
Keith said:
We can now leave all requests like "can u help me ..." to U. That
should reduce the load.
Hmm. Can we find some idiot\\\\\public benefactor to participate here
under the name "You"?
P
pete
Chris said:
I used to know a Korean named Yu, and a Chinese guy named Hu.
But I knew them at different times in different places
so I was never able to introduce them to each other: "Hu, Yu. Yu, Hu."
R
Richard Heathfield
U said:
I'm almost afraid to ask... what's the progress?[/QUOTE]
In absolute terms, it's extremely encouraging - the loop is proceeding very,
very quickly. But there's a long way to go yet.
How was your holiday?
(Make sure you're sitting down before you look at the size of your in-tray.)
I'm almost afraid to ask... what's the progress?[/QUOTE]
In absolute terms, it's extremely encouraging - the loop is proceeding very,
very quickly. But there's a long way to go yet.
How was your holiday?
(Make sure you're sitting down before you look at the size of your in-tray.)
F
Franz Hose
This thing still running?Richard said:
R
Richard Heathfield
Franz Hose said:
Yes, although for a week or two it slowed almost to a crawl (the machine
was very busy doing some heavy prime calcs) - but it soon picked up again
afterwards.
I've had to be pretty firm about this program - I've had no fewer than
three (rather generous) offers for exclusive rights to the source code,
one of them from someone in the States who called himself "Mr G", but I
cannot in all conscience release the code, even commercially, until the
test is complete.
Yes, although for a week or two it slowed almost to a crawl (the machine
was very busy doing some heavy prime calcs) - but it soon picked up again
afterwards.
I've had to be pretty firm about this program - I've had no fewer than
three (rather generous) offers for exclusive rights to the source code,
one of them from someone in the States who called himself "Mr G", but I
cannot in all conscience release the code, even commercially, until the
test is complete.
R
Richard Tobin
Richard Heathfield said:
I don't think you need worry. Unless they have *very* fast computers,
their copy won't terminate before yours.
-- Richard
J
Joe Wright
I think I know who "Mr G" is. He wants to factor large primes and heRichard said:
thinks your code might do it. Sell it to him. Also sell him a support
agreement which has you on a monthly retainer to help factor even larger
primes. "G" has money and you have time. Marriage made in heaven.
F
Fumeur
Richard Heathfield said:
What I was always wondering, in these kind of programs, that never exit,
and never return a value to their hosting environments, what is the best
signature of main()? Consider these possibilities...
(1a)
int main(void) {
for(;
{}
}
(1b)
int main(void) {
for(; {}
return 0;
}
(2)
void main(void) {
for(; {}
}
1a) most compilers complain about a missing return statement.
1b) some compilers complain about the return statement being unreachable.
2) some compilers complain about void main() (but Schildt uses void main()
a lot in programs that *do* terminate)
Are there any possibilities that compile without warnings?
What I was always wondering, in these kind of programs, that never exit,
and never return a value to their hosting environments, what is the best
signature of main()? Consider these possibilities...
(1a)
int main(void) {
for(;
{}}
(1b)
int main(void) {
for(;
{}return 0;
}
(2)
void main(void) {
for(;
{}}
1a) most compilers complain about a missing return statement.
1b) some compilers complain about the return statement being unreachable.
2) some compilers complain about void main() (but Schildt uses void main()
a lot in programs that *do* terminate)
Are there any possibilities that compile without warnings?
G
Golden California Girls
Fumeur said:Richard Heathfield said:
What I was always wondering, in these kind of programs, that never exit,
and never return a value to their hosting environments, what is the best
signature of main()? Consider these possibilities...
(1a)
int main(void) {
for(;
}
(1b)
int main(void) {
for(;
return 0;
}
(2)
void main(void) {
for(;
}
1a) most compilers complain about a missing return statement.
1b) some compilers complain about the return statement being unreachable.
2) some compilers complain about void main() (but Schildt uses void main()
a lot in programs that *do* terminate)
Are there any possibilities that compile without warnings?
in 1b have you tried putting a label on the return?
F
Flash Gordon
Fumeur wrote, On 15/12/07 23:13:
Only acceptable if the implementation documents it. Even then, unless it
is freestanding and it specifies 1a/1b as being invalid, why limit yourself?
One warning on a project can be documented as expected and then ignored.
See above.
If anything, Schildt doing it is an argument *against* doing it. Search
the grou for terms sugh as bullschildt and "bull schildt" for references
to the many errors in his books.
Since compilers are allowed to warn about anything they like, no.
However, having worked in a company where there were restrictive coding
standards and the norm was to require clean compilation, I can tell you
that even in such places a *small* number of warnings is generally
acceptable.
Richard Heathfield said:
What I was always wondering, in these kind of programs, that never exit,
and never return a value to their hosting environments, what is the best
signature of main()? Consider these possibilities...
(1a)
int main(void) {
for(;
}
Acceptable.
(1b)
int main(void) {
for(;
return 0;
}
Acceptable.
(2)
void main(void) {
for(;
}
Only acceptable if the implementation documents it. Even then, unless it
is freestanding and it specifies 1a/1b as being invalid, why limit yourself?
One warning on a project can be documented as expected and then ignored.
See above.
If anything, Schildt doing it is an argument *against* doing it. Search
the grou for terms sugh as bullschildt and "bull schildt" for references
to the many errors in his books.
Since compilers are allowed to warn about anything they like, no.
However, having worked in a company where there were restrictive coding
standards and the norm was to require clean compilation, I can tell you
that even in such places a *small* number of warnings is generally
acceptable.
B
Barry Schwarz
Richard Heathfield said:
What I was always wondering, in these kind of programs, that never exit,
and never return a value to their hosting environments, what is the best
signature of main()? Consider these possibilities...
(1a)
int main(void) {
for(;
}
(1b)
int main(void) {
for(;
return 0;
}
(2)
void main(void) {
for(;
}
1a) most compilers complain about a missing return statement.
1b) some compilers complain about the return statement being unreachable.
2) some compilers complain about void main() (but Schildt uses void main()
a lot in programs that *do* terminate)
Just because someone is able to publish a book does not mean the
contents are suitable for the purpose you intend. Betty Crocker
(nowadays I guess it would be Martha Stewart or Wolfgang Puck) would
be a better C reference than Schildt. On the other hand, it is not
completely useless. It contains many examples of what not to do.
You could try
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 0; i++){
i--;
...
}
Remove del for email
R
Richard Heathfield
Barry Schwarz said:
The request was for an infinite loop, but the loop you show here will be
very finite indeed.
The request was for an infinite loop, but the loop you show here will be
very finite indeed.
R
RoS
In data Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:43:16 -0800, Barry Schwarz scrisse:
the above is not an infinite loop
this will be: for(i=0;i<=0;++i) --i;
the above is not an infinite loop
this will be: for(i=0;i<=0;++i) --i;
R
RoS
In data Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:22:26 +0100, RoS scrisse:
nobody have seen there should be an undefinite bheaviour?
(because the start is --i with int i=0)
nobody have seen there should be an undefinite bheaviour?
(because the start is --i with int i=0)
R
Richard Heathfield
RoS said:
Nobody except you, no.
C&V please.
Nobody except you, no.
C&V please.
T
Two-Horned Unicorn
What are the specifications, specifically,
(1) Under what conditions is the test run considered complete?
(2) Does it maintain some sort of counter? If so,
(2a) How many iterations did it perform already?
(Zed) When the test finally completes, how do you know this loop has run
an infinite number of times?