From: "Trenton D. Adams" <tadams@theone.dnsalias.com>
To: "'Grant Edwards'" <grante@visi.com>
Cc: "'Jonathan Larmour'" <jlarmour@redhat.com>,
"'Andrew Lunn'" <andrew.lunn@ascom.ch>,
"'eCos discussion'" <ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: [ECOS] Network programming for eCos under linux
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 08:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003001c12020$c6da1d70$090110ac@TRENT> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010808103411.B13989@visi.com>
> <soapbox>
>
> I've claimed for many years that C, as a systems language,
> should provide a way for the user to specify data layout in
> memory when it is require for meeting external requirements
> such as memory mapped hardware, comm protocols, etc. This
> would allow the user to control data layout in a static,
> declaritive approach, similar to the way C deals with data
> types and scoping: all three would be could declared at
> compile-time.
>
> The C language mavens reply that C _could_ do something like
> that, but they prefer to leave it up to the user to shovel
> individual bytes around to get them arranged as desired. (That
> way it's much more error prone and uses up more CPU cycles!)
> They seem to prefer an imperitive approach, where you layout
> data at run-time rather than at compile time, even though
> everything else about data objects (type, scope) is defined at
> compile time.
>
> I don't understand their reasoning, but there's no way I'm ever
> going to convince them to change things now. :)
>
> </soapbox>
>
Well apparently Microsoft's compiler doesn't follow the standard then!
Oh, that's a big surprise!!!! ;) LMAO. Anyhow, it allows you to specify
alignment for compile time. I would have to say that in this case, I
agree with Microsoft not following the standard! :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-08 8:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-07 15:41 Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 0:35 ` Andrew Lunn
2001-08-08 6:27 ` Jonathan Larmour
2001-08-08 6:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2001-08-08 7:13 ` Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 7:52 ` Jonathan Larmour
2001-08-08 8:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2001-08-08 8:06 ` Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 8:14 ` Jonathan Larmour
2001-08-08 8:47 ` Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 8:58 ` Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 9:04 ` Mark Salter
2001-08-08 9:06 ` Jonathan Larmour
2001-08-08 9:19 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 9:07 ` Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 8:32 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 8:43 ` Trenton D. Adams [this message]
2001-08-08 8:57 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 7:57 ` [ECOS] " Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 8:09 ` Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 8:14 ` Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 8:42 ` Grant Edwards
2001-08-08 8:21 ` Andrew Lunn
2001-08-08 8:27 ` Trenton D. Adams
2001-08-08 9:00 ` [ECOS] " Grant Edwards
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='003001c12020$c6da1d70$090110ac@TRENT' \
--to=tadams@theone.dnsalias.com \
--cc=andrew.lunn@ascom.ch \
--cc=ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=grante@visi.com \
--cc=jlarmour@redhat.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).