Re: [9fans] Brdline
or making irrational assumptions about what the compiler does without ever reading K&R. brucee On 1/19/06, Adrian Tritschler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > read "the art of networking style" for a great rant on standards. > > > > Note that film standards are ISO/DIN numbers -- not one number, two. > > That's how they resolved how to pick the #. > > > > 48 byte cells came from standards. > > Ah, but think of the elegance that comes from adding an odd byte-length > of header to result in a prime-number sized packet :-) > > > ron >Adrian > > --- > Adrian Tritschler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E, Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44 > --- >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
Ronald G Minnich wrote: > read "the art of networking style" for a great rant on standards. > > Note that film standards are ISO/DIN numbers -- not one number, two. > That's how they resolved how to pick the #. > > 48 byte cells came from standards. Ah, but think of the elegance that comes from adding an odd byte-length of header to result in a prime-number sized packet :-) > ron Adrian --- Adrian Tritschler mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latitude 38°S, Longitude 145°E, Altitude 50m, Shoe size 44 ---
Re: [9fans] Brdline
what cricket is on the tv today? when do i have to get to pub? why is life so complex? ken once commented that a simple RCA connector was not standardized but everyone agreed to make them the same. there are zillions in the world. maybe it was standandized post factum. brucee On 1/19/06, andrey mirtchovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why not, it's wednesday after all and we're pretty far off topic: > > ...None of these facts, however strange or inexplicable, is as > strange or inexplicable as the rules of the game of Brockian > Ultra-Cricket, as played in the higher dimensions. A full set of > rules is so massively complicated that the only time they were > all bound together in a single volume, they underwent > gravitational collapse and became a Black Hole. > > A brief summary, however, is as follows: > > Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, > but it keeps the crowds amused. > > Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player. Clone him > off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious > selection and training. > > Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field > and build a high wall round them. > > The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator > sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not > actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine > that it's a lot more exciting than it really is. A crowd that has > just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life- > affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the > most dramatic event in sporting history. > > Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment > over the wall for the players. Anything will do - cricket bats, > basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good > swing with. > > Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all > they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player > scores a "hit" on another player, he should immediately run away > and apologize from a safe distance. > > Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and > points, delivered through a megaphone. > > Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins. > > [and elsewhere] > > "Let's be blunt, it's a nasty game" (says The Hitch Hiker's > Guide to the Galaxy) "but then anyone who has been to any of the > higher dimensions will know that they're a pretty nasty heathen > lot up there who should just be smashed and done in, and would > be, too, if anyone could work out a way of firing missiles at > right-angles to reality." > > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
On 1/18/06, Skip Tavakkolian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's nothing compared to the Brokian Ultra-Cricket rule book, that, > according to the Guide (h2g2), was so massive that it underwent a > gravitational collapse under its own weight, causing a massive > blackhole. In the process of listening to the original radio series — I believe it's h2g3 that talks of BUC. > Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field > and build a high wall round them. > > The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator > sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not > actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine > that it's a lot more exciting than it really is. A crowd that has > just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life- > affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the > most dramatic event in sporting history. I've been lurking on a standard revision committee (IE³ 754R). Interesting exposure to numerics, but little "life affirmation". ;) --Joel
Re: [9fans] Brdline
why not, it's wednesday after all and we're pretty far off topic: ...None of these facts, however strange or inexplicable, is as strange or inexplicable as the rules of the game of Brockian Ultra-Cricket, as played in the higher dimensions. A full set of rules is so massively complicated that the only time they were all bound together in a single volume, they underwent gravitational collapse and became a Black Hole. A brief summary, however, is as follows: Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, but it keeps the crowds amused. Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player. Clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training. Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them. The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it really is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life- affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history. Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the wall for the players. Anything will do - cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with. Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a "hit" on another player, he should immediately run away and apologize from a safe distance. Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone. Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins. [and elsewhere] "Let's be blunt, it's a nasty game" (says The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) "but then anyone who has been to any of the higher dimensions will know that they're a pretty nasty heathen lot up there who should just be smashed and done in, and would be, too, if anyone could work out a way of firing missiles at right-angles to reality."
Re: [9fans] Brdline
That's nothing compared to the Brokian Ultra-Cricket rule book, that, according to the Guide (h2g2), was so massive that it underwent a gravitational collapse under its own weight, causing a massive blackhole. >>> How about all standards committees advising one individual, the >>> standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and >>> social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly >>> constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any >>> alliances with anyone but the ITU. >> >> And where will you find any brilliant expert willing to do that job? >> It's guaranteed thankless and without innovation. > > Big house with expansive lawn sloping down to Lake Geneva. Lots of > ITU-paid servants and readers of papers at your beck and call. Maybe a > string quartet too. And a jester to deliver bad news. > >> Nothing is as soul-draining as standards arguments. > > Let the serfs argue. You rule.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
Paul Lalonde wrote: How about all standards committees advising one individual, the standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any alliances with anyone but the ITU. And where will you find any brilliant expert willing to do that job? It's guaranteed thankless and without innovation. Big house with expansive lawn sloping down to Lake Geneva. Lots of ITU-paid servants and readers of papers at your beck and call. Maybe a string quartet too. And a jester to deliver bad news. Nothing is as soul-draining as standards arguments. Let the serfs argue. You rule. -- Wes Kussmaul CIO The Village Group 738 Main Street Waltham, MA 02451 781-647-7178 My uncle likes to say that the world’s biggest troubles started when the serpent said, “Try this fruit, and by the way if a bunch of people collectively calling themselves Arthur Andersen signs something it’s the same as if a person named Arthur Andersen signed it.” I don’t get the serpent and fruit part. Must be some Swiss mythology thing. He can be a bit obscure. P.K. Iggy _How I Like Fixed The Internet_ (Tales from the Great Infodepression of 2009 and the prosperity that followed)
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> how about someone (or two) experts write the standard? > worked for K&R. > > brucee That worked. The UMTS standard, in contrast, was done by 4000 people and, trust me, it shows. I ran a received configuration message (30 bytes or so) through the ASN-1 decoder and ended up with a 5 megabyte C struct. Amazing. Sape
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> Nothing is as soul-draining as standards arguments. in the mid 80s i was on just one committee for a short time and when i left my dept i put the resulting many big boxes of papers in the dept library as a Warning to later generations. it was originally only intended to add four or five simple things (one type and a few functions) to an existing language (perhaps an afternoon to implement). it didn't end up that way.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
I think - just do it. The ozinferno "standard" is defined by the implementation - plus whatever documentation that i get time to write. This does not solve larger issues (like standards for cell phones) but it works for me. I didn't go to a meeting to add function pointers, i just did it. brucee On 1/19/06, David Leimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/18/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > how about someone (or two) experts write the standard? > > worked for K&R. > > > What's worse is standards with no reference implementation. Both C an C99 > seem to have suffered from this disease. > > C++ hasn't been implemented as 1998's spec has erm... specified to my > knowledge without any bugs. [EDG comes closest and Intel and other compiler > vendors are just using their front end, and paying for it as a result]. > > C99 has implementation issues like tgmath.h that are actually impossible to > implement in just C99. You absolutely will need compiler extensions to > implement that header properly. > > Perhaps the best way to specify a standard is to define it in a reference > implementation then talk about it. Not specify on paper and dream about how > it should work then find out how far off you were when you start trying to > prototype it. > > Dave > > > brucee > > > > On 1/19/06, Wes Kussmaul < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Paul Lalonde wrote: > > > > > > > Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By > > > > their very nature they have to compromise. > > > > Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a > > > > single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert > > > > before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn my > > > > expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! > > > > > > How about all standards committees advising one individual, the > > > standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and > > > social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly > > > constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any > > > alliances with anyone but the ITU. > > > > > > -- > > > Wes Kussmaul > > > CIO > > > The Village Group > > > 738 Main Street > > > Waltham, MA 02451 > > > > > > 781-647-7178 > > > > > > > > > My uncle likes to say that the world's biggest troubles started when the > serpent said, "Try this fruit, and by the way if a bunch of people > collectively calling themselves Arthur Andersen signs something it's the > same as if a person named Arthur Andersen signed it." I don't get the > serpent and fruit part. Must be some Swiss mythology thing. He can be a bit > obscure. > > > > > > P.K. Iggy > > > _How I Like Fixed The Internet_ > > > (Tales from the Great Infodepression of 2009 > > > and the prosperity that followed) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
On 1/18/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: how about someone (or two) experts write the standard?worked for K&R.What's worse is standards with no reference implementation. Both C an C99 seem to have suffered from this disease. C++ hasn't been implemented as 1998's spec has erm... specified to my knowledge without any bugs. [EDG comes closest and Intel and other compiler vendors are just using their front end, and paying for it as a result]. C99 has implementation issues like tgmath.h that are actually impossible to implement in just C99. You absolutely will need compiler extensions to implement that header properly.Perhaps the best way to specify a standard is to define it in a reference implementation then talk about it. Not specify on paper and dream about how it should work then find out how far off you were when you start trying to prototype it. DavebruceeOn 1/19/06, Wes Kussmaul < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Paul Lalonde wrote:>> > Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By> > their very nature they have to compromise.> > Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a > > single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert> > before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn my> > expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! >> How about all standards committees advising one individual, the> standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and> social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly > constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any> alliances with anyone but the ITU.>> --> Wes Kussmaul> CIO> The Village Group> 738 Main Street > Waltham, MA 02451>> 781-647-7178>>> My uncle likes to say that the world's biggest troubles started when the serpent said, "Try this fruit, and by the way if a bunch of people collectively calling themselves Arthur Andersen signs something it's the same as if a person named Arthur Andersen signed it." I don't get the serpent and fruit part. Must be some Swiss mythology thing. He can be a bit obscure. >> P.K. Iggy> _How I Like Fixed The Internet_> (Tales from the Great Infodepression of 2009> and the prosperity that followed)
Re: [9fans] Brdline
How about all standards committees advising one individual, the standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any alliances with anyone but the ITU. And where will you find any brilliant expert willing to do that job? It's guaranteed thankless and without innovation. You need a brilliant domain expert, and most of those are very much interested in their work, not in farting around being advised by committees. My last employer killed my sense of worth by pilling me on standards committees, evaluation committees, coffee-cup-washing committees ad infinitum. I may not be a brilliant expert, but they put me there as an expert, and killed the expertise simultaneously. Nothing is as soul-draining as standards arguments. Paul
Re: [9fans] Brdline
how about someone (or two) experts write the standard? worked for K&R. brucee On 1/19/06, Wes Kussmaul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Lalonde wrote: > > > Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By > > their very nature they have to compromise. > > Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a > > single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert > > before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn my > > expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! > > How about all standards committees advising one individual, the > standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and > social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly > constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any > alliances with anyone but the ITU. > > -- > Wes Kussmaul > CIO > The Village Group > 738 Main Street > Waltham, MA 02451 > > 781-647-7178 > > > My uncle likes to say that the world's biggest troubles started when the > serpent said, "Try this fruit, and by the way if a bunch of people > collectively calling themselves Arthur Andersen signs something it's the same > as if a person named Arthur Andersen signed it." I don't get the serpent and > fruit part. Must be some Swiss mythology thing. He can be a bit obscure. > > P.K. Iggy > _How I Like Fixed The Internet_ > (Tales from the Great Infodepression of 2009 > and the prosperity that followed) > > > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
Paul Lalonde wrote: Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By their very nature they have to compromise. Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn my expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! How about all standards committees advising one individual, the standards czar, your brilliant expert, with a background in law and social science as well as technology, who is able to apply duly constituted public authority to a standard. He/she cannot have any alliances with anyone but the ITU. -- Wes Kussmaul CIO The Village Group 738 Main Street Waltham, MA 02451 781-647-7178 My uncle likes to say that the world’s biggest troubles started when the serpent said, “Try this fruit, and by the way if a bunch of people collectively calling themselves Arthur Andersen signs something it’s the same as if a person named Arthur Andersen signed it.” I don’t get the serpent and fruit part. Must be some Swiss mythology thing. He can be a bit obscure. P.K. Iggy _How I Like Fixed The Internet_ (Tales from the Great Infodepression of 2009 and the prosperity that followed)
Re: [9fans] Brdline
well put sir, and i have a small kitchen. brucee On 1/19/06, Paul Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By > their very nature they have to compromise. > Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a > single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert > before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn > my expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! > > Paul > > On 17-Jan-06, at 10:11 PM, Bruce Ellis wrote: > > > standards are weird. i wish someone would standardize standards. > > oh no that would involve a committee of uninformed experts. > > > > i have never had a problem with kenc, both for user and kernel stuff. > > but i don't use putchar() or some other recalcitrant macro. > > > > the proof is in the pudding. > > > > brucee > > > > On 1/18/06, Paul Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> On 17-Jan-06, at 9:38 PM, Simon Williams wrote: > >> > >>> The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose > >>> from > >>> Cheers > >>>Simon ( who cant remember who said this first ) > >> > >> Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
:-) Must learn to proof my spelling of names in languages I don't speak :-) On 18-Jan-06, at 7:25 AM, Brantley Coile wrote: Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? No. It was Andy Tanenbaum. Not Andy Tannenbaum. That's a different fellow. From his book, Computer Networks.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
Standards are for when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. By their very nature they have to compromise. Give me the work of a standards committee before the the work of a single idiot; but most of all give me the work of a brilliant expert before that of the committee. And for God's sake, please don't turn my expert into an idiot by throwing him onto a committee! Paul On 17-Jan-06, at 10:11 PM, Bruce Ellis wrote: standards are weird. i wish someone would standardize standards. oh no that would involve a committee of uninformed experts. i have never had a problem with kenc, both for user and kernel stuff. but i don't use putchar() or some other recalcitrant macro. the proof is in the pudding. brucee On 1/18/06, Paul Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17-Jan-06, at 9:38 PM, Simon Williams wrote: The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from Cheers Simon ( who cant remember who said this first ) Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? Paul
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? No. It was Andy Tanenbaum. Not Andy Tannenbaum. That's a different fellow. >From his book, Computer Networks.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
read "the art of networking style" for a great rant on standards. Note that film standards are ISO/DIN numbers -- not one number, two. That's how they resolved how to pick the #. 48 byte cells came from standards. ron
Re: [9fans] Brdline
ahhh - just woken so here is a mildly related rant while the
coffee revs up.
standards? when i was staying with skip at Club Vashon
we had a power outage (some bloody tree falling) and when
the candles and flashlights started to fail i trundled upstairs
and grabbed by video camera which has night vision, spotlight
and a 5 hour battery (footage of target - the wonder dog - catching
frisbees in the dark will appear).
so the next day i go to costco with pat ('cause my luggage was
lost and then busted) and the first thing in the door was a huge
flashlight. brucee thinks 10 million candle-power. 10 million of
anything must be good and indeed it has been used more than
recreationally, to help stranded souls on the sound. so i grabbed
it as a present (of course she had cooked me a good breakfast).
but back to the point. i was at "bunnings" the other day (well
actually most days because i'm in renovation hell) and the same
flashlight was there - but repackaged (because candlepower is
not SI and not legal in australia) - bloody lumens.
then i bought a water blaster (good toy) and it's clearly marked
in PSI (pounds per square inch) - not very SI.
so there are rules and standards but they just get broken.
stay safe, throw the frisbee.
brucee
On 1/18/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> standards are weird. i wish someone would standardize standards.
> oh no that would involve a committee of uninformed experts.
>
> i have never had a problem with kenc, both for user and kernel stuff.
> but i don't use putchar() or some other recalcitrant macro.
>
> the proof is in the pudding.
>
> brucee
>
> On 1/18/06, Paul Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 17-Jan-06, at 9:38 PM, Simon Williams wrote:
> >
> > > The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose
> > > from
> > > Cheers
> > >Simon ( who cant remember who said this first )
> >
> > Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
>
Re: [9fans] Brdline
standards are weird. i wish someone would standardize standards. oh no that would involve a committee of uninformed experts. i have never had a problem with kenc, both for user and kernel stuff. but i don't use putchar() or some other recalcitrant macro. the proof is in the pudding. brucee On 1/18/06, Paul Lalonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 17-Jan-06, at 9:38 PM, Simon Williams wrote: > > > The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose > > from > > Cheers > >Simon ( who cant remember who said this first ) > > Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? > > Paul > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
On 17-Jan-06, at 9:38 PM, Simon Williams wrote: The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from Cheers Simon ( who cant remember who said this first ) Andy Tannenbaum, wasn't it? Paul
Re: [9fans] Brdline
it was either ken or chez if my memory survives. brucee On 1/18/06, Simon Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from > Cheers >Simon ( who cant remember who said this first ) > > > On 1/18/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > wait for the next standard. confusion will reign supreme! > > > > brucee > > > > On 1/17/06, Charles Forsyth < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week. > > > > > > to be fair, that honour should be reserved for ansi. > > > they took a confusing thing and made it even more confusing. > > > >
Re: [9fans] Brdline
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from Cheers Simon ( who cant remember who said this first )On 1/18/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: wait for the next standard. confusion will reign supreme!bruceeOn 1/17/06, Charles Forsyth < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week.>> to be fair, that honour should be reserved for ansi.> they took a confusing thing and made it even more confusing.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
wait for the next standard. confusion will reign supreme! brucee On 1/17/06, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week. > > to be fair, that honour should be reserved for ansi. > they took a confusing thing and made it even more confusing.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week. to be fair, that honour should be reserved for ansi. they took a confusing thing and made it even more confusing.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> | but that won't actually have any effect on systems where > | int is 32 bits but long is 64. the problem is that ((p)[3]<<24) > | is being (correctly) treated as a signed int, and then > | (vlong)(...|((p)[3]<<24)) sign extends. Casting the (p)[0] > | to (ulong) has the effect of making the whole 32-bit expression > | unsigned on 32-bit systems, but if ulong is 64 bits, then > | you'll still sign-extend ((p)[3]<<24) during the convertsion > | from int to ulong. > > i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week. this took me forever to puzzle through, by the way. the only reason i'm pretty sure it's true is that i tried it! ;-) russ
Re: [9fans] Brdline
Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | but that won't actually have any effect on systems where | int is 32 bits but long is 64. the problem is that ((p)[3]<<24) | is being (correctly) treated as a signed int, and then | (vlong)(...|((p)[3]<<24)) sign extends. Casting the (p)[0] | to (ulong) has the effect of making the whole 32-bit expression | unsigned on 32-bit systems, but if ulong is 64 bits, then | you'll still sign-extend ((p)[3]<<24) during the convertsion | from int to ulong. i'll be wearing the dope sack over my head this week. - erik
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> likewise, seek takes a vlong "where"so that a -1 "don't care" value can be > used. > this was the source of the sign-extension issue p9p's GBIT64 macro. seek takes a vlong so that you can seek backwards in a file. if you replace seek with pread, then you're right, except that -1 doesn't at all mean "don't care". > this was the source of the sign-extension issue p9p's GBIT64 macro. it wasn't. the original GBIT64 says: #define GBIT64(p) ((vlong)((p)[0]|...|((p)[3]<<24)) |\ ((vlong)((p)[4]|...|((p)[7]<<24)) << 32)) and you suggested: #define GBIT64(p) ((vlong)((ulong)(p)[0]|...|((p)[3]<<24)) |\ ((vlong)((ulong)(p)[4]|...|((p)[7]<<24)) << 32)) but that won't actually have any effect on systems where int is 32 bits but long is 64. the problem is that ((p)[3]<<24) is being (correctly) treated as a signed int, and then (vlong)(...|((p)[3]<<24)) sign extends. Casting the (p)[0] to (ulong) has the effect of making the whole 32-bit expression unsigned on 32-bit systems, but if ulong is 64 bits, then you'll still sign-extend ((p)[3]<<24) during the convertsion from int to ulong. the only way i see to fix this is to explicitly cast away the top bits: #define GBIT64(p) ((u32int)((p)[0]|...|((p)[3]<<24)) |\ ((vlong)((p)[4]|...|((p)[7]<<24)) << 32)) this is now fixed on sources and cvs. russ
Re: [9fans] Brdline
likewise, seek takes a vlong "where"so that a -1 "don't care" value can be used. this was the source of the sign-extension issue p9p's GBIT64 macro. if you know you're stuck with gcc, uvlong and ~0ULL may well have be a less error- prone option. - erik Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes | | > What about Brdstr? it seems to me a superset of Brdline and it returns | > a char * | | perhaps it was added later and they didn't think of that? | i'm not sure it makes a big difference. | the whole char*/uchar* interaction is bad though. | uchar* is important to ensure no sign-extension, | but it isn't compatible with the str* functions, and explicit casts | can mask mistakes.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
i believe that is why limbo just has "byte" which is unsigned, no options. get's those bugs out before they get in. brucee On 1/17/06, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What about Brdstr? it seems to me a superset of Brdline and it returns > > a char * > > perhaps it was added later and they didn't think of that? > i'm not sure it makes a big difference. > the whole char*/uchar* interaction is bad though. > uchar* is important to ensure no sign-extension, > but it isn't compatible with the str* functions, and explicit casts > can mask mistakes.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
> What about Brdstr? it seems to me a superset of Brdline and it returns > a char * perhaps it was added later and they didn't think of that? i'm not sure it makes a big difference. the whole char*/uchar* interaction is bad though. uchar* is important to ensure no sign-extension, but it isn't compatible with the str* functions, and explicit casts can mask mistakes.
Re: [9fans] Brdline
I am still not happy with the explanation of it giving something you may want to converto to uchar *. What about Brdstr? it seems to me a superset of Brdline and it returns a char * On 1/16/06, Bruce Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > beware that Brdline gives you a pointer to stuff that might change > when you do another Bio act. it has bitten me. use or save! > I already expected that to happen, after all it is a pointer to the buffer... -- - curiosity sKilled the cat
Re: [9fans] Brdline
beware that Brdline gives you a pointer to stuff that might change when you do another Bio act. it has bitten me. use or save! brucee On 1/16/06, Charles Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Is there any reason why Brdline, bio(2) returns void * instead of char * > > perhaps to allow it to be assigned to char* or uchar*
Re: [9fans] Brdline
>Is there any reason why Brdline, bio(2) returns void * instead of char * perhaps to allow it to be assigned to char* or uchar*
