Which entity in a system detects segmentation fault ?

[Ben Bacarisse]

K&R 1 eng 1978
" 1 deutsch 83
" 2 88 ?
" deutsch 2 92?

K&R2 famously came out before the ANSI standard (1989). A later
printing included some minor corrections that were needed because of
changes to the standard that happened after the first printing (note
"printing" not "edition"). The book acquired its big red "ANSI C" on
the cover at that printing.

Linux is usually dated from Linus' 1991 Usenet post.

 

[jameskuyper]

Larry Gates wrote:
....

Linux v unix; I astound how I can mention the generalities withoout being
given the points.

Well, you were at negative points to start with by suggesting that K&R
chapter 8 somehow makes Unix-specific questions on-topic for a C
newsgroup; misidentifying it as referring to Linux rather than Unix
makes things worse, and failing to even notice that people were making
that distinction in their responses to you lost you even more points.

James, do you acknowledge the folks who have already gotten away with
fraud?

Can no one make it retroactive?

I cannot figure out what your questions are referring to, so I have no
idea how to answer them. They seem to be complete non sequiturs. Can
you clarify? Specifically:

Which folks?
Which fraud?
What does "it" refer to in your second question?

I'm not denying the truth of your fraud claim - I'm saying I can
neither acknowledge nor reject your claim until I get some clues about
what the substance of the claim is.

 

[CBFalconer]

Do you know that I have used systems where that program would
run to completion without faulting?

Do you know that I have used systems where that program would
give the error message "Memory access violation"?

In what way does any form of C mandate that the error will be
"Segmentation fault"?


I am very sorry. The computer I am now using does not have a MMU.

I am glad you are reading Twinks off-topic and erroneous answers,
and rejecting them. Very few knowledgeable C types read his junk.

 

[CBFalconer]

K&R 1 eng 1978
" 1 deutsch 83
" 2 88 ?
" deutsch 2 92 ?

Linux v0.001 appeared about '94.

 

[CBFalconer]

James Kuyper wrote:
.... snip ...


Linux v unix; I astound how I can mention the generalities
withoout being given the points.

James, do you acknowledge the folks who have already gotten away
with fraud?

Can no one make it retroactive?

PLONK, for off-topic idiocy.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


Simple fence registers can establish a range of memory that a
currently running program can access, thereby protecting
adjacent programs. Fiddling with the fence registers can be a
privileged instruction that traps into the OS. As an added
benefit, fence registers can provide a relocation mechanism, so
that every task can have its own address zero, and be compiled
for a fixed logical address.

Can't you see that this deals with a particular system with
particular hardware, and has NOTHING to do with the C language?
Thus it is off-topic.

 

[Richard]

PLONK, for off-topic idiocy.

Chuck, you are a laughing stock. We do not care who you plonk.

 

[Richard]

Can't you see that this deals with a particular system with
particular hardware, and has NOTHING to do with the C language?
Thus it is off-topic.

C is used to program such systems and this is a developing thread.

Think of it as MORE on topic than when you told us about your dirty
pants when you didn't wash your undies for a week or two.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

Linux v0.001 appeared about '94.

I used 0.99, patch level 12, in late 1993.

 

[CBFalconer]

I used 0.99, patch level 12, in late 1993.

At any rate, the point is that K&R2 preceded Linux.

 

[Phil Carmody]

Linux v0.001 appeared about '94.

If you're going to pretend to have facts, at least make them more
believable to those of us who were happily running a rather out-of-
date 0.95 in 1993. 1991 is the date you were scrabbling for, which
still demonstrates that Larry was in error, but one shouldn't fight
errors with more errors.

Phil

 

[CBFalconer]

If you're going to pretend to have facts, at least make them
more believable to those of us who were happily running a rather
out-of-date 0.95 in 1993. 1991 is the date you were scrabbling
for, which still demonstrates that Larry was in error, but one
shouldn't fight errors with more errors.

To me '91 is "about '94". At any rate, the point was what
pre-dated what.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

To me '91 is "about '94". At any rate, the point was what
pre-dated what.

Right, and C++ is approximately C, and int main is approximately void main, and
a pointer one element past the end of the array is approximately in that array.

Precision is something you can selectively apply to yourself, just not
to other people.

 

[Guest]

Linux v unix;  I astound how I can mention the generalities withoout being
given the points.

James, do you acknowledge the folks who have already gotten away with
fraud?

Can no one make it retroactive?

are you posting whilst drunk?

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Chuck, you are a laughing stock. We do not care who you plonk.

If you really wouldn't care, you hadn't replied...