assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler

c

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. Help about Graphy Theory and Communication Networks C /C++ plz..
    Hi everyone.. I need help about graph theory ( network problems) .. I have below problem . Does anyone know any existence algorithms or solutions to this problem ?? The Problems is: " We can use graphs to represent a communication network. In such graphs, the vertices represent communication stations and the edges represent communication links. Critical points are the vertices whose failure will result in the network becoming disconnected. Similarly, critical links are the edges whose failure will result a loss of communication. Sub components are the graphs which don't contain no critical points. In this experiment, you are supposed to develop a program that generates graph structure of a communication network given and implements some graph algorithms which help managing the network. For the given a communication network as an undirected graph G(V,E), write a program that will do the following : a) Find all critical points in G. b) Find all critical edges in G. c) Find the sub components in G." It is my assignment and I will code it in C/C++;. SO IS THERE ANY ALGORITHM/SOLUTION WAY for this problem.. I am new to graph theory and this kind of maths..it is discrete maths problem I think , Anyone has any idea? Plz help.. Thanks in Advance.. Xeyder
  • 2. [META] Where this stuff should go then? [Was: printf extensions for output of arrays]
    En news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM , Keith Thompson va escriure: [Reformatted] > Are you asking about the language as it's currently defined > (topical for comp.lang.c, but the answer is simply "no"), > about a proposed enhancement for the next version of the > standard (topical in comp.std.c), Agreed so far. > or about non-standard extensions to the language (off-topic)? Ahem. But then, where could it be on-topic to ask for existing extensions to the language beyond the standard? Particularly if someone is interested into things that could be used among various platforms (which would disqualify comp.os.nameyourmosthatredsystem.programming). I believe comp.lang.c does not have any charter or RFD (probably because it predates the formal procedures for the creation of a new newsgroup), yet it seems to me it should be dealt with here (or there, since this is cross-posted ;-)). Particularly since the readership which does know about the answers is following one or another group... By the way, applying Keith's reasonning to the letter would mean that any post mentionning long long would have been off-topic some years ago ;-), and Google Groups have more than 400 threads mentionning it (in comp.lang.c before 1999-12-01, that is)... Antoine
  • 3. Variable FILENAME in fopen(). How to make it?
    Hi, I would like to save data from multiple repetitive simulations into a set of files. Each time a simulation restarts, I would like it to automatically generate a file with a name containing some of the useful variable information. For example, if M is 5 and N is 10, I want the file to be named as "myfile-5x10.txt". How can I do this? I guess I need to construct a string somehow and let it be my filename. Thank you
  • 4. [OT] E-SOLUTIONS GALORE, RIGHT?!?!?!?! : D
    "Christopher Benson-Manica" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news:dl8lhj$6iq$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ... > Gabriel Lear < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote: > >> Sorry, but I definely do not take advice from "guys" with hyphenated >> last names. > > You're free not to, but I'm not sure I understand your prejudice > against guys with hyphenated last names. Mr Lear obviously has made some assumption about your character based soley upon your name. I believe there's a term that describes people who do that ... As for myself, I do judge people; but I base my judgement upon their behavior only. -Mike

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.

w..


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++ ) {
    foo();
    /* ... */
  }
#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)gmail.com      | don't, I need to know.  Flames welcome.



Return to c

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guest