On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> Is there going to be any part of this interpreter that isn't a "no-no"?
> You're going to longjmp() around all your crazy malloc'd stacks? Seriously
> Chris, how is it that you can come up with all these wild... Schemes... and
>
[snip a lot of jibba-jabba]
> >And, I assume that there will be no recursion in your
> program? Because
> >if
> there
> >is you're guaranteed heap corruption.
>
> No, each function call has its own scheme environment and
> therefore its own stack. So on a recursive call a new
> environment is
> From: "Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >In the post you're replying to, I listed the legitimate reasons for
> >wanting to do it. Here they are again:
> >
> >- If you're writing a task switcher.
>
> And what's the difference between a task switcher and
> switching between co-routines?
You seem t
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:52:16PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:21:41AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:56:44PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
I've heard of sigstack and sigalstack but cygwin hasn't.
>>>
>>>Well that's a shame since sigalt
On Aug 15 16:52, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>
> >Yes, I know. Unless I implement this *crucial* bit of functionality it
> >is possible that the space time continuum will implode.
>
> I see, so any API that you personally have no use for should be mocked.
>
> >However, since it is not currently imple
>Yes, I know. Unless I implement this *crucial* bit of functionality it
>is possible that the space time continuum will implode.
I see, so any API that you personally have no use for should be mocked.
>However, since it is not currently implemented, since there is no sign
>of an implementation
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 02:56:44PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>>I've heard of sigstack and sigalstack but cygwin hasn't.
>
>Well that's a shame since sigaltstack is part of the base specification
>for X/Open UNIX. If cygwin wants to become UNIX compatible it needs to
>implement it.
Yes, I know.
>As I mentioned previously, cygwin uses the stack for thread local
>storage so you can't just create a new stack and expect things to work.
>You've worked around that by wrapping cygwin function calls with
>save/restore operations.
It's not clear to me why cygwin threads should care where their s
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:58:10PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>>cgf wrote:
>>>It is really not nonsensible for an OS to assume that it has control of
>>>the stack.
>>
>>Lots of claims flying around, but no justification. An OS
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 12:58:10PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>cgf wrote:
>>It is really not nonsensible for an OS to assume that it has control of
>>the stack.
>
>Lots of claims flying around, but no justification. An OS specified
>stack can provide automatic extension to applications that are
>Your demonstration code didn't use any Windows system calls. You were
>calling cygwin functions.
And printf doesn't use a Windows system call to write its output??
I fully admit to being in the dark about whether it is Windows or cygwin
that is being annoying here.
>I notice that you save yo
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:11:47AM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>>I suggest you investigate those alternatives instead of trying to
>>do something that cannot work, and then getting all pissy when people try to
>>dissuade you from wasting your time.
>
>That's strange. Now that I know that on Windo
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>In the post you're replying to, I listed the legitimate reasons for wanting
>to do it. Here they are again:
>
>- If you're writing a task switcher.
And what's the difference between a task switcher and switching
between co-routines? Basically nothing at all exc
>All major languages in use today have a runtime - C is no different. On
UNIX/Linux, its mostly (if not always)
>called libc (glibc being the GNU variant used on most Linux systems).
Well I don't think of libc as part of the C language proper because I spent
a number of years programming in a
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 03:47:45PM +1000, Chris wrote:
>The world doesn't revolve around the C language's assumptions, but it
>could well be that Windows does care.
I already told you that Windows cares. There is no reason to speculate.
>That's why I'm asking my question here. Not so that you c
On Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:47 AM [EDT], Chris wrote:
Yeah dude, you did. You pulled the rug out from under the C runtime,
Cygwin, and apparently even the OS. It is not within the
jurisdiction of a C program to do that.
Uh, C doesn't have a "runtime".
All major languages in use today have
> >> Anyway, this similar code does work under Linux, or at least it
> >> appears to:
> >>
> >
> >It's a long walk from "at least appears to work" to "does work".
>
> Are you saying it doesn't work, or are you just generally in
> a grumpy mood?
>
...? I'm saying exactly what I said. I'm in
Anyway, this similar code does work under Linux, or at least
it appears to:
It's a long walk from "at least appears to work" to "does work".
Are you saying it doesn't work, or are you just generally in a grumpy mood?
While I don't claim to be an uber-expert in assembler, I know
I didn't "j
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
> Anyway, this similar code does work under Linux, or at least
> it appears to:
>
It's a long walk from "at least appears to work" to "does work".
[snip]
> >You just threw away the stack and
From: Jason FU wrote:
No, it doesn't 'work fine' under Linux. In fact it doesn't work at all,
on any platform.
My apologies for sending something that doesn't work under Linux, but I had
something similar working, but I wanted to cut it down for the sake of the
mailing list, and I didn't hav
Original Message
>From: Jason FU
>Sent: 12 August 2005 08:35
> Bitmead, Chris writes:
>>
>> I'm writing an implemention of a scheme interpreter in C, and as people
>> familiar with that language know, it requires some stack manipulation.
>> Now to test this out I wrote a little program...
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:07:19PM +1000, Bitmead, Chris wrote:
>I'm writing an implemention of a scheme interpreter in C, and as people
>familiar with that language know, it requires some stack manipulation. Now
>to test this out I wrote a little program
>
>
>#include
>
>int main() {
>
Bitmead, Chris ag.gov.au> writes:
>
>
> I'm writing an implemention of a scheme interpreter in C, and as people
> familiar with that language know, it requires some stack manipulation. Now
> to test this out I wrote a little program
>
> #include
>
> int main() {
> char * st1;
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
