From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [TUHS] Fwd: struct(1) revived! And a request for help Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:19:05 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <202201131519.20DFJ55W003349@freefriends.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAKH6PiX69rpSQCVYcwVQeLCLR1AzT=jQChNRuH5=i6B-Dc_Feg@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Doug. Let's hope it can be brought all the way into 64 bit mode. Dr. Baker has been brought into the loop, so I am hopeful. :-) Arnold Douglas McIlroy <email@example.com> wrote: > Arnold, > > I'm very glad you have revived struct. It is an important historical > artifact, and it's nice to have it freed from distracting obsolete > usage. > > To my mind, struct ranks among the top accomplishments of our > department at Bell Labs. It was also a lesson in humility to me. > > When Brenda proposed struct, it was obvious that it could be built, > but I advised against doing so. I thought it would take an endless > pile of special cases to generate respectable Ratfor. She demurred, > saying that she thought she could do better than that. And she was > right. She produced not only working Ratfor programs, but a > canonical-form theorem that distinguished those programs from all the > ad hoc alternatives I had imagined. The value of the theorem was > attested by users' reports that the derived Ratfort was easier to > understand than the Fortran they had written themselves. > > Doug > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 7:58 AM > Subject: [TUHS] struct(1) revived! And a request for help > To: <email@example.com> > > > Hello All. > > We recently discussed Brenda Baker's struct program, that read Fortran > and generated Ratfor. Many of us remarked as to what a really cool > program it was and how much we admired it, myself included. > > For fun (for some definition of "fun") I decided to try to bring the code > into the present. I set up a GitHub repo with the V7, V8 and V10 code, > and then started work in a separate branch. > > (https://github.com/arnoldrobbins/struct, branch "modernize".) > > The program has three main parts: > > - structure, which reads Fortran and outputs something that is > almost Ratfor on standard output. > > - beautify, which reads the output of structure and finishes the job, > primarily making conditions readable (.not. --> !, removing double > negatives, etc.) > > - struct.sh - a simple shell script that runs the above two components. > This is what the user invokes. > > The code was written in 1974. As such, it is rife with "type punning" > between int, int *, int **, and char *. These produce a lot of warnings > from a modern day C compiler. The code also uses a, er, "unique" bracing > style, making it nearly illegible to my stuck-in-a-rut programming brain. > > Here is what I've accomplished so far: > > * Converted every function definition and declaration to use modern (ANSI) > C style, adding a header file with function declarations that is > included everywhere. > > * Run all the code through the indent program, formatting it as traditional > K&R bracing style, with tabs. > > * Fixed some macros to use modern style for getting parameter values as strings > into the macros. > > * Fixed a few small bugs here and there. > > * Fixed beautify to work with modern byacc/bison (%union) and to work with > flex instead of lex. This latter was a challenge. > > In structure, only three files still generate warnings, but they all relate > to integer <--> pointer assignment / use as. However, when compiled in > 32 bit mode (gcc -m32), where sizeof(int) is the same as sizeof(pointer), > despite the warnings, structure works!! > > Beautify works, whether compiled in 32 or 64 bit mode. > > What I've done so far has been mostly mechanical. I hereby request help from > anyone who's interested in making progress on "the hard part" --- those three > files that still generate warnings. > > I think the right way to go is to replace int's with a union that holds and > int, a char* and an int*. But I have not had the quiet time to dive into > the code to see if this can be done. > > Anyone who has some time to devote to this and is interested, please drop > me a note off-list. > > Thanks, > > Arnold Robbins
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-13 15:19 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-01-12 12:58 [TUHS] " arnold 2022-01-13 4:23 ` [TUHS] Fwd: " Douglas McIlroy 2022-01-13 6:30 ` [TUHS] " Rich Morin 2022-01-13 15:19 ` arnold [this message] 2022-01-13 22:21 ` Skip Tavakkolian
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=202201131519.20DFJ55W003349@freefriends.org \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [TUHS] Fwd: struct(1) revived'\!' And a request for help' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).