assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler


    Sponsored Links


  • 1. Out of memory compilation
    Hey! I have a little problem here.. I am trying to compile a huge C++ code of about 2 lakh lines and the compilation gives me the following error cc1plus: out of memory allocating 42381928 bytes after a total of 391704576 bytes make: *** [model_1.o] Error 1 I am running this on a server with 4 GB RAM.. The code uses ILOG libraries.. ILOG is a licensed constraint solver... Why would a code compilation need so much memory and how can I find where exactly is it consuming so much memory? Akanksha
  • 2. A tcp connetion question
    They r two processes, for client and server, connected with TCP. Connection is OK. I killed the server process, while the client seems not to feel that before it sent some data by calling send(). And it checked the errno, which indicated a segmentation fault error. Why should it be segmentation fault rather than something indicating disconnection?
  • 3. Array index subtraction and wrapping
    (I'm posting this via Google, I apologize if the From: line is completely broken.) I'm trying to track down a bug in some code which handles memory buffers. I'm not accustomed to using C, and there's an idiom which is confusing me. The buffer uses head (writing) and tail (reading) offsets. Calculating the size is being done with lines like this: end = (head + (buffer_size - tail)) % buffer_size; size = end; Now, I understand (I think) why the math is ordered the way it is, to avoid any potential integer overflow when "head + buffer_size" would have been calculated. What I don't understand is why size = head - tail; would not have been sufficient? What's the point of "wrapping" the numbers around the buffer, so to speak?

Re: assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler

Postby Walter Banks » Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:35:39 GMT

As this thread wanders off topic this industry was introduced to a new
mnemonic in Byte article about decoding the undocumented
Motorola 6800 instructions. The HCF (Halt Catch Fire) opcode $DD
or $D9. HFC locked up the processor and cycled the address bus
The author of that article was Gerry Wheeler.

Gerry Wheeler, 54, died October 15, 2006, advanced non-Hodgkins
lymphoma cancer. Gerry made significant contributions to the technology
of the embedded systems world and was a key part of the development
of many household name products.

Programmer, Ham KG4NBB, author, father, husband, active commuity
participant Gerry will be missed by all.


Similar Threads:

1.assembly in future C standard

Peter Nilsson < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

(Crossposted to comp.std.c, with followups directed there, hopefully
 appropriately.  The original post discussed the possibility of whether
 __asm or something similar to it would be added to the C standard.)

> Contrary to Richard Heathfield's categorical statement, it is not an
> absolute given that there will never be an asm keyword in C. But it
> is unlikely because it's already clear that the asm keyword in C++ has
> not served to truly standardise the syntax of inline assembly.

One idea that was not mentioned in the original thread (I imagine for
good reason, because it's a half-baked and probably stupid idea that
occurred to me reading your post) would be to allow for some kind of
conditional assembly, just perhaps something like

#pragma assemble
#pragma X86 /* Inner pragma's implementation-defined */
  /* Inline assembly, which the implementation can ignore or not */
#pragma no-assemble
  /* Stock C code for implementations that can't or won't accept the
   * assemble pragma: */
  for( i=1; i < 10; i++ ) {
    /* ... */
#pragma end-assemble

The end result would be something like "If the implementation attempts
to inline the assembly code contained within a #pragma assemble
directive, the behavior is implementation-defined.  Otherwise the
assembly code shall be ignored and the C code contained within any
corresponding #pragma no-assemble directive shall be compiled as
though no directives were present."  It would require adding some
duties to the #pragma directive, but it would allow implementors to
take a reasonable shot at using targetted assembly instructions when
appropriate and available, and reverting to ordinary C otherwise.

I'm sure there are reasons why this is stupid and/or impossible, or it
would have been done already :-)

> At the end of the day, the committee could probably spend many man
> weeks deciding issues on an __asm keyword, but for what? Most
> implementations will keep their existing syntax, and most programmers
> who use inline assembly will no doubt continue to prefer the localised
> syntax because it's less cumbersome than any standard syntax.

Indeed, but it's an interesting thought experiment to consider how the
committee *might* add assembly to C if they chose to do so.  (Well,
interesting to me, at least.)

C. Benson Manica           | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)      | don't, I need to know.  Flames welcome.

Return to c


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guest