 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>
> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
What, no COMEFROM?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>
> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
What, no COMEFROM?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Visual Basic, too, might not have gained such popularity, had it not been
> chosen as the scripting language for the most popular office package. And
> who would be talking about JavaScript, had it not been the first scripting
> language to be integrated in a web browser?
>
> (And who would ever have heard of POV-Ray SDL if it wasn't bundled with
> the POV-Ray raytracer? ;))
And who would have ever heard of Ruby if someone hadn't made a web framework
with it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
>
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> you could do a "GOTO xyz" where xyz was a variable.
>> What, ON GOTO and ON GOSUB weren't good enough for you? :-)
>
> What, no COMEFROM?
Actually, the problem with GOTO is not the GOTO, but the label. If you added
a COMEFROM, you'd actually have a much easier time figuring out the code.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
>
http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
Argh! Stupid newsreader segfaulting right before saving the message list,
then on restart thinking the message wasn't sent yet and sending it again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I've always wondered why people think C is good for writing kernel-level
>> code, as the only facility in C that actually deals with the sorts of
>> things you do in a kernel is "volatile".
>
> http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
That's why Ada distinguishes volatile, atomic, and "protected" (which means
basically critical section/monitor/atomic/Java-synchronized). Using
"volatile" to mean "other CPUs can modify this" isn't what it's for in C.
It's for hardware modifications, like status registers, not something you
can lock other CPUs running kernel code against.
"The spinlock primitives act as memory barriers" unless the shared data
structure is a UART status register.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
