assembly in future C standard HCF Gerry Wheeler

c

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. Fully-portable command line parser
    I've had a look at "argtable" but I wanna ask if people have had good experience with it. Is it really 100% portable as it claims to be? Ever had trouble with it? I've had a quick look at "getopt" as well, but "argtable" seems to be more thorough.
  • 2. cos not working
    HI I'm newby with C and this is not working. we all know that cos Pi is -1 but answer here is 1.000000 !!!! i use MS compile so please help!!! extern void main(); extern int printf(); extern double cos(); void main(){ #define Pi 22/7 printf("%lf",cos(Pi)); return; } answer 1.000000 <--- not right!!!!! thanks everyone :)
  • 3. No format string passed to variable argument list function
    Hi, I have a simple printf-like function: int print(const char *format, ...) { char buffer[1024]; va_list argptr; int i; va_start(argptr, format); i = vsnprintf(buffer, sizeof(buffer), format, argptr); va_end(argptr); buffer[sizeof(buffer)-1] = '\0'; printf("%s\n",buffer); /* this bit just for the sake of testing */ return i; } If I call the function using something like: char message[50]; strcpy(message, "hi there"); print("%s",message); everything works, but if I do: print(message); it doesn't (program crashes with an abort). Is there something wrong with what I'm doing, or should I be looking elsewhere to work out the cause of my crash? Thanks a lot, Adam

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 71 guest