[not quite ot] what language is this??

[fel]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

thanks in advance

 

[Antoninus Twink]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b // ....

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

Looks like some flavor of ARM assembly code to me.

 

[Keith Thompson]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

How is that "not quite ot"?

Try comp.lang.misc or comp.programming.

 

[CBFalconer]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

Looks like assembly language, and it is off-topic on c.l.c.

 

[Pilcrow]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

Looks like assembly language, and it is off-topic on c.l.c.

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question. Someone might
know the answer, or know where the answer can be found, and it is a very
small expenditure of space. After all, I see a tremendous amount of
space used in quibbles over what is the *orthodox* (standard) C code.

If you can't help, don't hinder.

 

[Keith Thompson]

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question. Someone might
know the answer, or know where the answer can be found, and it is a very
small expenditure of space. After all, I see a tremendous amount of
space used in quibbles over what is the *orthodox* (standard) C code.

If you can't help, don't hinder.

My response was one of the first. I suggested that the OP try
comp.lang.misc or comp.programming.

Other newsgroups do exist for a reason, you know.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question.

It's hardly a joy, but imagine how many more off-topic posts there would
be if they _didn't_. I've seen it happen to many other groups and it
ain't pretty; I'll take the annoyance here any day.

Someone might know the answer, or know where the answer can be found,
and it is a very small expenditure of space.

.... and, if the off-topic answer is wrong, there may be nobody here that
is knowledgeable about that off-topic subject to correct it.

If you can't help, don't hinder.

Telling people where they can find a reliable, peer-reviewed answer _is_
help. There's a reason there is more than one newsgroup, and there are
plenty of newsgroups that are more general than clc where one can get
direction to the right one.

S

 

[Chris Dollin]

Looks like some flavor of ARM assembly code to me.

The mere presence of LDM and STM opcodes doesn't make it ARM
assembler.

Quite why the OP thought it remotely topical is beyond me.

 

[Nick Keighley]

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC.  Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question.  Someone might
know the answer, or know where the answer can be found, and it is a very
small expenditure of space.

yes but the original post and the answer would *still* be off-topic.

 After all, I see a tremendous amount of
space used in quibbles over what is the *orthodox* (standard) C code.

please re-post that in english

If you can't help, don't hinder

telling someone they are off-topic *is* help.

Do you realise that your post has doubled the number
of "this is off-topic" posts?

 

[Nick Keighley]

Antoninus Twink wrote:


The mere presence of LDM and STM opcodes doesn't make it ARM
assembler.

he didn't say it was ARM assembler. he said it *looked* like ARM
assembler.

 

[Chris Dollin]

he didn't say it was ARM assembler. he said it *looked* like ARM
assembler.

He said it looked like ARM assembler /to him/, and about the
only thing I could see there that suggested ARM rather than
generic-assembler was the use of LDM/STM opcodes. And since
the syntax of those opcodes isn't remotely like that of the
ARM opcodes, that's not enough.

Antoninus (heavens, now I have to write his name I realise I've
been misreading it for yonks -- that second `n` has been invisible)
suggested it was ARM assembler. (If he wasn't suggesting it, why
make that comment at all in that form?) I was suggesting that
the clues that I /assumed/ -- perhaps incorrectly -- he was using
were insufficient to the task.

I'm still OT here so I'll stop.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

He said it looked like ARM assembler /to him/, and about the
only thing I could see there that suggested ARM rather than
generic-assembler was the use of LDM/STM opcodes. And since
the syntax of those opcodes isn't remotely like that of the
ARM opcodes, that's not enough.

The code also refers to registers R0, R1, etc. (presumably in comments),
so I thought it might be some sort of pseudo-assembly for an ARM
architecture.

As you say, it's far from conclusive proof (and I didn't claim that it
was), but given that nobody else was likely to give a helpful answer,
why not give a possible answer that the OP can check out if he's
interested?

Do you know what the code actually is? No one's given a definite answer
yet.

 

[Pilcrow]

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

Looks like assembly language, and it is off-topic on c.l.c.

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question. Someone might
know the answer, or know where the answer can be found, and it is a very
small expenditure of space. After all, I see a tremendous amount of
space used in quibbles over what is the *orthodox* (standard) C code.

If you can't help, don't hinder.

After seeing the response my previous remarks received:

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said. the
OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc. Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke, which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

Further, the quality of being on-topic or off-topic is not an absolute.
A remark might be on-topic on several groups. Some groups tend to be
more restrictive than others in their definition. Perl allows expansion
by modules that include C code, so questions about C-in-perl are
sometimes found on comp.lang.misc. Similarly for questions about
calling perl from within C. Other groups are more or less restrictive
in this regard. clc seems to be one of the most restrictive. I doubt
that any question about the marriage of perl and C would be tolerated
here.

Sometimes several groups have overlapping topics. Some groups are much
more active than others. I originally asked a few questions on
gnu.gcc.help, because that is the compiler I use, but soon saw that
there was not much traffic there. Though clc should include the
territory of ggh, I have a suspicion that my question, which was
eventually answered on ggh, would have been off-topic here, because it
dealt with the peculiarities of gcc on win32. clc is _very_ restrictive
about that sort of thing, but a microsoft group probably would have been
even more restrictive.

As to the amount of 'space' that is appropriate for a topic, I see 153
messages in the thread 'highly efficient string reversal code', which
was an obvious joke. Why be so quick to slap the hand of the innocent,
but naive, questioner who over-steps a bound he may not have been aware
of, and so lenient with a troll?

I will say no more on this topic.

 

[Pilcrow]

fel wrote:

2000 LDM 0, 1004 // R0 = a //
2004 LDM 2, 1008 // R2 = b //
2008 MUL 0, 2 // R0 = a * b //
2010 LDM 1, 1012 // R1 = c //
2014 LDM 2, 1016 // R2 = d //
2018 MUL 1, 2 // R1 = c * d //
2020 SUB 0, 1 // R0 = a * b - c * d //
2022 STM 0, 1000 // Mot[1000] = a * b - c * d //
2026 HALT 0, 0
1004 LIT F(1.2) // a
1008 LIT F(1.3) // b
1012 LIT F(1.4) // c
1016 LIT F(1.5) // d

I heard of a java JAR thing to compile this, but i can't recognize
what it is...

Looks like assembly language, and it is off-topic on c.l.c.

The chief joy of many regulars in clc is apparently to tell most of the
questioners that their query is OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps they should wait a
bit before putting their wet blanket on the question. Someone might
know the answer, or know where the answer can be found, and it is a very
small expenditure of space. After all, I see a tremendous amount of
space used in quibbles over what is the *orthodox* (standard) C code.

If you can't help, don't hinder.

After seeing the response my previous remarks received:

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said. the
OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc. Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke, which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

Further, the quality of being on-topic or off-topic is not an absolute.
A remark might be on-topic on several groups. Some groups tend to be
more restrictive than others in their definition. Perl allows expansion
by modules that include C code, so questions about C-in-perl are
sometimes found on comp.lang.misc. Similarly for questions about

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
comp.lang.perl.misc

 

[Nick Keighley]

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said.

why not. It *was* off-topic

the
OP asked a legitimate question.  He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc.

well, ok. Though it seems fairly obvious to me that assembler isn't
C...

Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke,

he wasn't rebuked. He was provided with information.

which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

I have seem people profusely apologise before they actually
post on -topic stuff . Which is sad but I don't see a way to avoid
it.
Sometimes you can't guess the topicality bounds of foreign news-
groups.
We just take our best guess and when given clarifying
information we act upon it.

Further, the quality of being on-topic or off-topic is not an absolute.

yes. I believe clc has sufferdd in the past. And C is (or was)
used for such a vast range of things that "The Universe and
Its Entire Contents" becomes on-topic for clc.

<snip mostly sensible stuff>

 

[Keith Thompson]

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said. the
OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc. Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke, which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

[...]

Why shouldn't CBFalconer have told the OP that the question was
off-topic, and what makes you think it was a "rebuke"? The OP had
specifically asserted that the question was topical ("[not quiet ot]"
in the subject header). He was mistaken. Chuck pointed out his
mistake.

Apparently you'd have preferred that Chuck simply answer the question
without mentioning the fact that it's off-topic. Then the OP could
easily have assumed that comp.lang.c is the right place for questions
that have absolutely nothing to do with C.

I suspect, frankly, that you haven't thought this through.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Further, the quality of being on-topic or off-topic is not an absolute. [snip]
I doubt that any question about the marriage of perl and C would be
tolerated here.

You're right, of course. In fact, the majority of questions about C are
not tolerated here by many of the "regulars".

As to the amount of 'space' that is appropriate for a topic, I see 153
messages in the thread 'highly efficient string reversal code', which
was an obvious joke. Why be so quick to slap the hand of the
innocent, but naive, questioner who over-steps a bound he may not have
been aware of, and so lenient with a troll?

The people who can't tolerate the slightest deviation from their fixed
mental picture of the platonic ideal of clc are the same people who
won't walk on cracks in the pavement, and for much the same reason.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said. the
OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc. Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke, which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

[...]

Why shouldn't CBFalconer have told the OP that the question was
off-topic, and what makes you think it was a "rebuke"? The OP had

If you don't understand the answer to that question (i.e., if you are
not asking it in irony), then you really need to be re-educated in what
it means to be a human being. Get off your CLC high horse for just one
second, think back to an earlier time in your life, when you really were
a human being, and you interacted with real, live, people, and then
consider how you would have felt (back then, not now, of course) if
people had treated you this way - that is, the way the regs treat people
in CLC.

My guess is you wouldn't like it. In fact, my further guess is that
quite often in your old life, people did treat you this way, and you are
bound and determined to get them like they got you. Sad. Very sad.

(Yes, I know Keith will pretend not to have read this, and won't pay it
any attention [which is very sad], but hopefully others will learn from
the experience).

 

[Richard]

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have said. the
OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't know whether it was
something pertinent to clc. Having got the answer, he need not have been
given the rebuke, which might have discouraged someone else from asking
a question about something that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt
was on topic.

[...]

Why shouldn't CBFalconer have told the OP that the question was
off-topic, and what makes you think it was a "rebuke"? The OP had

If you don't understand the answer to that question (i.e., if you are
not asking it in irony), then you really need to be re-educated in what
it means to be a human being. Get off your CLC high horse for just one
second, think back to an earlier time in your life, when you really were
a human being, and you interacted with real, live, people, and then
consider how you would have felt (back then, not now, of course) if
people had treated you this way - that is, the way the regs treat people
in CLC.

My guess is you wouldn't like it. In fact, my further guess is that
quite often in your old life, people did treat you this way, and you are
bound and determined to get them like they got you. Sad. Very sad.

(Yes, I know Keith will pretend not to have read this, and won't pay it
any attention [which is very sad], but hopefully others will learn from
the experience).

Good to see you and Twink keeping up the good work and balancing the
group. In almost 20 years as a professional in IT I have never come
across such a bunch of self important arses as here in c.l.c. It is
truly mind boggling how they got so self inflated. CBFalconer and
vippstar in particular seem to delight in putting people down at every
opportunity. Fortunately there are far more level headed contributors
too.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Mr Falconer said "Looks like assembly language", then he added the
phrase "and it is off-topic on c.l.c.", which he need not have
said. the OP asked a legitimate question. He obviously didn't
know whether it was something pertinent to clc. Having got the
answer, he need not have been given the rebuke, which might have
discouraged someone else from asking a question about something
that _was_ on topic, but that he might doubt was on topic.

Telling him it is off-topic is informative. It is not a rebuke.

.... snip ....

I will say no more on this topic.

And you have already said far too much.