Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > C > bunch of pedant...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 64 Topic 24968 of 27679
Post > Topic >>

bunch of pedants

by jacob navia <jacob@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 16, 2008 at 05:53 AM

The regulars go on denying that C uses a stack. They should
read this:

<begin quote>
Any function in C may be recursive
(without special declaration) and most possess several "automatic"
variables local to each invocation. These characteristics suggest
strongly that a stack must be used to store the automatic variables,
caller's return point, and saved registers local to each function;
in turn, the attractiveness of an implementation will depend heavily
on the ease with which a stack can be maintained.
<end quote>

This was written by an expert in C.

True, there is no mention of a stack in their bible
Fact is, there isn't any C implementations that don't use
a stack to store the automatic variables.

Up to now, this people are unable to put forward a single
example of an implementation that doesn't use a hardware
stack (maintained by a register in a contiguous memory
addressing space)

Their first "example" was ARM and some Risc processors.

I proved them wrong.

Then they started tripping with IBM mainframes. Nope, I showed
them the do***entation of the IBM compilers for mainframes
where they describe the stack and its associated register (r13)

Then they started with the 8051. I showed them that that processor
has a stack (it has PUSH/POP instructions apparently) but it is
too small, so some compilers use an external stack.

Even if they have not a single example, they go on with bull**** of the
style "but an implementation *could* exist that... blah blah blah"

Facts are not im****tant. The C standard does not mention a stack,
and that is it. It is possible then to throw at unaware people that
asks questions in this group sentences like
"C has no stack"
"There is no stack in C"

Since they have no arguments, they discuss with tricks like

1) After you have proved them yet another time wrong, they will
    answer with the eternal sentence "The standard doesn't mention a
    stack" and the discussion can start from the beginning

2) After you have proved that the machine XYZ DOES have a stack,
    they say "But an implementation *could* exist" and the discussion
    can start from the beginning.

I decided that it is a waste of time to discuss with them. They just
repeat their bull**** without caring about what you answer to them

Personally I will not answer any more to falcolner and co. "C has no
stack" for them? Let it be.



-- 
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
 




 64 Posts in Topic:
bunch of pedants
jacob navia <jacob@[EM  2008-03-16 05:53:30 
Re: bunch of pedants
Ian Collins <ian-news@  2008-03-16 18:04:36 
Re: bunch of pedants
Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl  2008-03-16 01:59:38 
Re: bunch of pedants
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-16 11:56:09 
Re: bunch of pedants
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangc  2008-03-16 07:40:47 
Re: bunch of pedants
Richard Heathfield <rj  2008-03-16 07:18:02 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Malcolm McLean"  2008-03-16 09:42:19 
Re: bunch of pedants
Mark McIntyre <markmci  2008-03-16 12:34:18 
Re: bunch of pedants
Richard Heathfield <rj  2008-03-16 14:18:44 
Re: bunch of pedants
Geoff <geoff@[EMAIL PR  2008-03-16 11:17:33 
Re: bunch of pedants
Chris Torek <nospam@[E  2008-03-17 00:42:22 
Re: bunch of pedants
Jack Klein <jackklein@  2008-03-16 12:09:12 
Re: bunch of pedants
William Pursell <bill.  2008-03-16 01:11:45 
Re: bunch of pedants
Keith Thompson <kst-u@  2008-03-16 02:31:11 
Re: bunch of pedants
CBFalconer <cbfalconer  2008-03-16 17:56:54 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-19 08:24:38 
Re: bunch of pedants
Keith Thompson <kst-u@  2008-03-19 08:06:41 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-19 13:47:55 
Re: bunch of pedants
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSz  2008-03-16 10:52:01 
Re: bunch of pedants
santosh <santosh.k83@[  2008-03-16 15:41:42 
Re: bunch of pedants
Mark McIntyre <markmci  2008-03-16 13:08:47 
Re: bunch of pedants
Flash Gordon <spam@[EM  2008-03-16 11:00:43 
Re: bunch of pedants
Kaz Kylheku <kkylheku@  2008-03-16 07:51:15 
Re: bunch of pedants
user923005 <dcorbit@[E  2008-03-17 18:28:40 
Re: bunch of pedants
Keith Thompson <kst-u@  2008-03-18 09:55:00 
Re: bunch of pedants
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-18 20:58:50 
Re: bunch of pedants
user923005 <dcorbit@[E  2008-03-18 18:59:32 
Re: bunch of pedants
Keith Thompson <kst-u@  2008-03-18 22:14:27 
Re: bunch of pedants
rlb@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R  2008-03-21 09:46:36 
Re: bunch of pedants
Philip Potter <pgp@[EM  2008-03-21 10:40:37 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-21 11:02:04 
Re: bunch of pedants
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-21 16:52:57 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-21 20:33:38 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-21 12:54:58 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-21 20:36:26 
Re: bunch of pedants
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-21 13:32:20 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Rod Pemberton"  2008-03-21 12:54:36 
Re: bunch of pedants
Peter Nilsson <airia@[  2008-03-18 19:32:40 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-18 21:45:08 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Dik T. Winter"  2008-03-19 12:27:57 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-19 07:40:06 
Re: bunch of pedants
user923005 <dcorbit@[E  2008-03-18 21:24:26 
Re: bunch of pedants
jacob navia <jacob@[EM  2008-03-19 10:39:17 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-19 11:50:59 
Re: bunch of pedants
jacob navia <jacob@[EM  2008-03-19 17:33:31 
Re: bunch of pedants
Flash Gordon <spam@[EM  2008-03-20 00:14:11 
Re: bunch of pedants
lawrence.jones@[EMAIL PRO  2008-03-20 11:54:35 
Re: bunch of pedants
Flash Gordon <spam@[EM  2008-03-20 20:06:52 
Re: bunch of pedants
Nick Keighley <nick_ke  2008-03-19 04:30:58 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-19 07:33:09 
Re: bunch of pedants
David Thompson <dave.t  2008-03-31 04:27:45 
Re: bunch of pedants
user923005 <dcorbit@[E  2008-03-19 11:47:21 
Re: bunch of pedants
"robertwessel2@[EMAI  2008-03-19 16:09:24 
Re: bunch of pedants
"Bartc" <bc@  2008-03-16 15:21:37 
Re: bunch of pedants
gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-03-16 17:42:04 
Re: bunch of pedants
Keith Thompson <kst-u@  2008-03-16 11:18:20 
Re: bunch of pedants
Mark McIntyre <markmci  2008-03-16 23:03:40 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-16 11:43:31 
Re: bunch of pedants
Ben Bacarisse <ben.use  2008-03-16 21:03:17 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-16 15:32:20 
Re: bunch of pedants
gordonb.w3265@[EMAIL PROT  2008-03-16 22:01:56 
Re: bunch of pedants
Morris Dovey <mrdovey@  2008-03-16 16:44:12 
Re: bunch of pedants
ymuntyan@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-03-16 13:49:04 
Re: bunch of pedants
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-03-23 11:42:42 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sat Oct 11 21:21:59 CDT 2008.