Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Fco. J. Ballesteros]

:  After Ken's compiler, lcc is my favorite C compiler.  Ah, for the days
:  when C and I were young, and all the compilers were Steve' pcc.  I
:  never got a chance to use Dennis' compiler in the heat of battle, but
:  it's code is a wonder to behold.  It's evolution from NB to C is the
:  best example I've seen of entropy in reverse.

Could we see the code?

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Richard Miller]

> :  never got a chance to use Dennis' compiler in the heat of battle, but
> :  it's code is a wonder to behold.  It's evolution from NB to C is the
> :  best example I've seen of entropy in reverse.
>
> Could we see the code?

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v6/v6src.tar.gz

Look in directory 'c'.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Anthony Sorace]

also interesting, in terms of evolution:

http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/primevalC.html

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Brantley Coile]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 105 bytes --]

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/primevalC.html

See the above for the evolution of the code.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2440 bytes --]

From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:14:31 +0000
Message-ID: <aa5409a26b13f8535c296cfdb9dedc2f@hamnavoe.com>

> :  never got a chance to use Dennis' compiler in the heat of battle, but
> :  it's code is a wonder to behold.  It's evolution from NB to C is the
> :  best example I've seen of entropy in reverse.
>
> Could we see the code?

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v6/v6src.tar.gz

Look in directory 'c'.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[erik quanstrom]

in the section after the /* storage */ comment in c00.c

	regtab 0;
	efftab 1;
[etc.]

should this be read as

	int regtab = 0;
	int efftab = 1;

?

- erik

Brantley Coile <brantley@coraid.com> writes

|
| --upas-sxzcqiogirovolmsuexgarfigy
|
| http://plan9.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/primevalC.html
|
| See the above for the evolution of the code.
|
| --upas-sxzcqiogirovolmsuexgarfigy
| To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>,
| 	9fans@cse.psu.edu,
| 	Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
| References: <aa5409a26b13f8535c296cfdb9dedc2f@hamnavoe.com>
| In-Reply-To: <aa5409a26b13f8535c296cfdb9dedc2f@hamnavoe.com>
| Subject: Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....
|
| > :  never got a chance to use Dennis' compiler in the heat of battle, but
| > :  it's code is a wonder to behold.  It's evolution from NB to C is the
| > :  best example I've seen of entropy in reverse.
| >
| > Could we see the code?
|
| http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v6/v6src.tar.gz
|
| Look in directory 'c'.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Richard Miller]

> in the section after the /* storage */ comment in c00.c
>
> 	regtab 0;
> 	efftab 1;
> [etc.]
>
> should this be read as
>
> 	int regtab = 0;
> 	int efftab = 1;

Yes.

[9fans] Re: A Plan 9 C request....

[Nikita Danilov]

erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> writes:

> in the section after the /* storage */ comment in c00.c
>
> 	regtab 0;
> 	efftab 1;
> [etc.]
>
> should this be read as
>
> 	int regtab = 0;
> 	int efftab = 1;
>
> ?

Submit a patch.

>
> - erik

Nikita.

Re: [9fans] Re: A Plan 9 C request....

[LiteStar numnums]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1092 bytes --]

For Primeval C?

On 3/27/06, Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com> wrote:
>
> erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> writes:
>
> > in the section after the /* storage */ comment in c00.c
> >
> >       regtab 0;
> >       efftab 1;
> > [etc.]
> >
> > should this be read as
> >
> >       int regtab = 0;
> >       int efftab = 1;
> >
> > ?
>
> Submit a patch.
>
> >
> > - erik
>
> Nikita.
>
>


--
Nietzsche's first step is to accept what he knows. Atheism for him goes
without saying and is "contructive and
radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke a kind of
crisis and a final decision about the
problem of atheism. The world continues on its course at random and there is
nothing final about it. Thus God
is useless, since He wants nothing in particular. If he wanted something --
and here we recognize the traditional
forumlation of the problem of evil -- He would have to assume responsiblity
for "a sum total of pain and inconsistency
which would debase the entire value of being born."
-- Albert Camus, L'Homme révolté

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1632 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Brantley Coile]

> As a person who's done porting of embedded systems between compilers and
> just working with VC, gcc, icc, et al, in general, I couldn't agree more!
>
> $0.02
> Andrew

After Ken's compiler, lcc is my favorite C compiler.  Ah, for the days
when C and I were young, and all the compilers were Steve' pcc.  I
never got a chance to use Dennis' compiler in the heat of battle, but
it's code is a wonder to behold.  It's evolution from NB to C is the
best example I've seen of entropy in reverse.

 Brantley

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Devon H. O'Dell]

2006/3/1, Ronald G Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>:
> Brantley Coile wrote:
> >>now means
> >>
> >>      { int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
> >
> >
> > Does that mean the following will compile?
> >
> > void
> > f(void)
> > {
> >       i = 3;
> >       put(i);
> >       for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> >               put(i);
> >       if (i == 4) put(4);
> > }
> >
>
>   cat > t.c
> void
> f(void)
> {
>          i = 3;
>          put(i);
>          for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
>                  put(i);
>          if (i == 4) put(4);
> }
> [rminnich@q tmp]$ cc t.c
> t.c: In function 'f':
> t.c:4: error: 'i' undeclared (first use in this function)
> t.c:4: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> t.c:4: error: for each function it appears in.)
> t.c:6: error: 'for' loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode
> [rminnich@q tmp]$
>
>
> ron

And the reason it doesn't is because in this code snippet, the
variable i is undeclared. I assume since the i is not declared, the
compiler steps out of C99 mode and refuses to allow the C99 construct
of for (int i...)

--Devon

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Andrew R. Reiter]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, David Leimbach wrote:

:On 3/1/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
:> >> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
:> >> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
:> >> i like a behavior like this:
:> >>
:> >>      { int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }
:> >
:> > so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
:> > both have declared that
:> >
:> >       for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
:> >
:> > now means
:> >
:> >       { int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
:>
:> i didn't know. wow?!
:> my vc6 is officially an antique.
:>
:>
:
:
:VC *anything* should not be seen as an implementation of any standards :).
:

As a person who's done porting of embedded systems between compilers and
just working with VC, gcc, icc, et al, in general, I couldn't agree more!

$0.02
Andrew

--
arr@watson.org

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[David Leimbach]

On 3/1/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> >> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> >> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> >> i like a behavior like this:
> >>
> >>      { int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }
> >
> > so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
> > both have declared that
> >
> >       for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
> >
> > now means
> >
> >       { int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
>
> i didn't know. wow?!
> my vc6 is officially an antique.
>
>


VC *anything* should not be seen as an implementation of any standards :).

I've heard the .NET stuff is better but they've added a ton of
extensions to "managed C++" that really isn't C++ anymore.

In fact I was told they were lobbying to get that stuff into the
standard but Bjarne isn't favorable to language changes that he thinks
could be solved in libraries.

Dave

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Ronald G Minnich]

Brantley Coile wrote:
>>now means
>>
>>	{ int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
> 
> 
> Does that mean the following will compile?
> 
> void
> f(void)
> {
> 	i = 3;
> 	put(i);
> 	for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> 		put(i);
> 	if (i == 4) put(4);
> }
> 

  cat > t.c
void
f(void)
{
         i = 3;
         put(i);
         for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
                 put(i);
         if (i == 4) put(4);
}
[rminnich@q tmp]$ cc t.c
t.c: In function ‘f’:
t.c:4: error: ‘i’ undeclared (first use in this function)
t.c:4: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
t.c:4: error: for each function it appears in.)
t.c:6: error: ‘for’ loop initial declaration used outside C99 mode
[rminnich@q tmp]$


ron

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[jmk]

The C Rationale (6.8.5.3) says:

	int i = 42;
	for (int i = 5, j = 15; i < 10; i++, j--)
		printf("Loop %d %d\n",, i, j);
	printf("I = %d\n", i);	// there is no j in scope

will output

	Loop 5 15
	Loop 6 14
	Loop 7 13
	Loop 8 12
	Loop 9 11
	I = 42

On Wed Mar  1 13:26:33 EST 2006, brantley@coraid.com wrote:
> > now means
> >
> > 	{ int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
>
> Does that mean the following will compile?
>
> void
> f(void)
> {
> 	i = 3;
> 	put(i);
> 	for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
> 		put(i);
> 	if (i == 4) put(4);
> }

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Russ Cox]

> Does that mean the following will compile?
>
>     1	void
>     2	f(void)
>     3	{
>     4		i = 3;
>     5		put(i);
>     6		for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
>     7			put(i);
>     8		if (i == 4) put(4);
>     9	}

No, because i is undeclared at line 4.
It's still not a good example.  Here's a better one:

void
main(void)
{
	int i = 100;
	for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
		printf("%d\n", i);
	printf("%d\n", i);
}

It prints 0 1 2 100.

Russ

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
>> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
>> i like a behavior like this:
>>
>> 	{ int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }
>
> so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
> both have declared that
>
> 	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
>
> now means
>
> 	{ int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }

i didn't know. wow?!
my vc6 is officially an antique.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Brantley Coile]

> now means
>
> 	{ int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }

Does that mean the following will compile?

void
f(void)
{
	i = 3;
	put(i);
	for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
		put(i);
	if (i == 4) put(4);
}

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Richard Bilson]

On 3/1/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> i like a behavior like this:
>
>         { int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }

This (the way you like it) is the way it was eventually standardized
in C++. Any modern compiler that I have used does it this way.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Russ Cox]

> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> i like a behavior like this:
>
> 	{ int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }

so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
both have declared that

	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);

now means

	{ int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }

russ

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[rog]

> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> i like a behavior like this:
>
> 	{ int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }

when i first started to use Limbo, which has a similar looking
idiom, i thought the same.

	for(i := 0; i < 10; i++) {
	}

but actually, having the variable
available outside the scope is so often useful,
e.g.
	for(i := 0; i < end; i++)
		if(sometest())
			break;
	if(i == end)
		fall_through_condition();

that i now think the non-scoping behaviour is the right thing.

i'm not sure that it's worth adding to plan 9 C though.

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Brantley Coile]

> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
> i like a behavior like this:

I think the scope shouldn't extend past the first semicolon. :)

/* Boyd Roberts Memorial Obnoxious Comment Society member */

Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Skip Tavakkolian]

when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
i like a behavior like this:

	{ int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }

> Here's a request for my favorite C feature from C99, which isn't yet in
> Plan 9 C.  I'd really like it if one could write statements of the form,
>
> 	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
>
> or
>
> 	for (char *p = s; *p != '\0'; p++);
>
> That is, declare variables in the first part of a for loop.  That would
> be nice.  Anyone care to add it to the compiler?  I'd try it myself, but
> I'm just too busy right now....

[9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[Dan Cross]

Here's a request for my favorite C feature from C99, which isn't yet in
Plan 9 C.  I'd really like it if one could write statements of the form,

	for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);

or

	for (char *p = s; *p != '\0'; p++);

That is, declare variables in the first part of a for loop.  That would
be nice.  Anyone care to add it to the compiler?  I'd try it myself, but
I'm just too busy right now....

	- Dan C.