(new) Theory and Practice of Programming

Wylbur decoding - (broomberg) - (3) - Jan. 16, 2003, 07:15:03 PM EST

Somebody figured it out - (broomberg) - Jan. 16, 2003, 08:15:55 PM EST

Don't know Wylbur from hole in the ground, but... - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - Jan. 16, 2003, 09:20:31 PM EST

Feels like it - (broomberg) - Jan. 16, 2003, 11:23:52 PM EST

Brainfuck - (deSitter) - (13) - Jan. 13, 2003, 02:19:54 PM EST

Some people have too much time on their hands - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:57:59 AM EDT

You obviously haven't seen Ook# - (tjsinclair) - (5) - Jan. 14, 2003, 05:28:56 PM EST

Ook! -NT - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 14, 2003, 06:15:38 PM EST

Oook! -NT - (static) - (1) - Jan. 14, 2003, 06:57:58 PM EST

Re: Oook! - (tjsinclair) - Jan. 14, 2003, 07:13:09 PM EST

It would be interesting.... - (static) - (1) - Jan. 14, 2003, 07:09:00 PM EST

Oh, I don't know - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:00:58 AM EDT

Dare I? - (ChrisR) - (5) - Jan. 23, 2003, 01:59:52 PM EST

sputter gasp choke -NT - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 23, 2003, 02:05:21 PM EST

Since I only used 7 of the 8 instructions... - (ChrisR) - Jan. 24, 2003, 09:34:58 AM EST

ROFL, ROWL, ROCL! -NT - (CRConrad) - Jan. 23, 2003, 02:39:00 PM EST

ROFL! -NT - (slugbug) - Jan. 23, 2003, 09:38:41 PM EST

Don't let tablizer see it! :) -NT - (a6l6e6x) - Jan. 23, 2003, 10:39:43 PM EST

Python pops up again - (tonytib) - Jan. 12, 2003, 09:51:18 PM EST

Off on disability means I can try and train myself - (orion) - (18) - Jan. 12, 2003, 06:37:21 PM EST

Uh huh, like an athlete doing sprints with a torn hamstring - (tuberculosis) - (17) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:56:28 AM EDT

If that is the same guy *I* know of... - (folkert) - (13) - Jan. 14, 2003, 11:10:33 AM EST

Yeah - he organizes esug - (tuberculosis) - (12) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:57:56 AM EDT

Umm.... Which... - (folkert) - (10) - Jan. 14, 2003, 12:56:20 PM EST

Probably - (tuberculosis) - (9) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:58:15 AM EDT

Sure you were... It's your story... Grumpy... - (folkert) - (8) - Jan. 14, 2003, 03:04:11 PM EST

Looks bigger than us.. - (deSitter) - (2) - Jan. 14, 2003, 03:08:39 PM EST

Broncos -NT - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:58:50 AM EDT

Oh Yeah - (deSitter) - Jan. 14, 2003, 04:35:48 PM EST

Actually, I think thats pure stress - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:58:52 AM EDT

Ah... yes now I see it... - (folkert) - (3) - Jan. 14, 2003, 05:14:56 PM EST

Interpretation time - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:59:06 AM EDT

Re: Interpretation time - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 14, 2003, 07:12:12 PM EST

Root object - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:01:00 AM EDT

What a bunch of wussies - (deSitter) - Jan. 14, 2003, 02:29:47 PM EST

Fantastic stuff, thanks -NT - (deSitter) - Jan. 14, 2003, 11:33:12 AM EST

A question for you. - (orion) - (1) - Jan. 21, 2003, 06:35:24 AM EST

Its a VM - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 12:37:54 PM EDT

Determining platform type/OS in gcc via #defines - (admin) - (25) - Jan. 8, 2003, 07:48:54 PM EST

Maybe Mozilla source would help... - (Another Scott) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2003, 08:26:13 PM EST

Yes, this is the sort of thing I was looking for: - (admin) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:34:57 PM EST

Is this on Linux? - (deSitter) - (8) - Jan. 8, 2003, 08:35:32 PM EST

what he said -NT - (boxley) - Jan. 8, 2003, 08:54:28 PM EST

I wasn't clear enough. - (admin) - (6) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:33:28 PM EST

Gotta be a #pragma right? - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:59:56 PM EST

#define -NT - (admin) - Jan. 8, 2003, 10:03:15 PM EST

/usr/include/machine/cpu.h (like that?) -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:17:19 PM EST

Doesn't exist on this box. - (admin) - (2) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:21:24 PM EST

osx has 3 entries - (boxley) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:27:50 PM EST

Heh. No /usr/include/i386 either. - (admin) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:39:26 PM EST

I don't really have an answer handy... - (ChrisR) - (13) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:24:43 PM EST

Compile time, without passing -D switches. -NT - (admin) - (12) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:35:48 PM EST

If memory serves me correct... - (ChrisR) - (11) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:41:52 PM EST

Right. But I don't want to pass -D switches. :-) - (admin) - (10) - Jan. 8, 2003, 09:53:26 PM EST

Could autoconf help? - (static) - (9) - Jan. 9, 2003, 04:14:56 AM EST

We have our own build system; autoconf not a part of it -NT - (admin) - (8) - Jan. 9, 2003, 08:19:36 AM EST

Autoconf could still be useful - (neelk) - (7) - Jan. 9, 2003, 01:24:15 PM EST

Autoconf does so at runtime. - (admin) - (6) - Jan. 9, 2003, 01:34:45 PM EST

Are we talking about "configure" script? - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Jan. 9, 2003, 03:42:14 PM EST

You misunderstand me. - (admin) - (4) - Jan. 9, 2003, 03:46:40 PM EST

One man's compile time... - (ChrisR) - (3) - Jan. 9, 2003, 04:04:20 PM EST

I already do that; I don't want to. :-) - (admin) - (2) - Jan. 9, 2003, 04:38:25 PM EST

So what you're really wanting is... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Jan. 9, 2003, 04:46:21 PM EST

s/wanting/using - (admin) - Jan. 9, 2003, 05:01:51 PM EST

MinFORTH for Everything - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:27:43 AM EST

..and.. - (deSitter) - Jan. 8, 2003, 11:31:55 AM EST

Converting Python float to single precision? - (tonytib) - Jan. 7, 2003, 08:32:43 PM EST

The Perfect Operating System - off square one :) - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:40:29 PM EST

ROFL - classic - (deSitter) - Jan. 6, 2003, 11:34:33 PM EST

Anyone looked at splint? - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 6, 2003, 05:40:25 PM EST

C decimal question: - (admin) - (53) - Jan. 3, 2003, 05:53:14 PM EST

Equality on Real/Double is always a crapshoot - (tablizer) - Jan. 3, 2003, 06:04:04 PM EST

Don't know... - (Simon_Jester) - Jan. 3, 2003, 06:04:45 PM EST

Re: C decimal question: - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2003, 09:26:50 PM EST

Makes no difference. - (admin) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:15:39 AM EST

The boolean compare operators - (ChrisR) - (36) - Jan. 4, 2003, 02:12:52 AM EST

I've done the subtract - (admin) - (35) - Jan. 4, 2003, 08:50:00 AM EST

Assembly dump? - (ChrisR) - (22) - Jan. 4, 2003, 12:57:27 PM EST

I did my dump with GDB - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 5, 2003, 02:11:21 PM EST

What I get: - (admin) - (20) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:34:38 AM EST

Speculating... - (ChrisR) - (19) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:49:00 AM EST

gcc 2.95.4 results - (admin) - (18) - Jan. 6, 2003, 11:06:04 AM EST

Re: gcc 2.95.4 results - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 11:35:48 AM EST

EBP is base of stack frame - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 6, 2003, 01:18:01 PM EST

I86 Assembly is not my specialty... - (ChrisR) - Jan. 6, 2003, 12:30:53 PM EST

ASM Comments - (ChrisR) - (13) - Jan. 6, 2003, 02:12:59 PM EST

Errrr... - (admin) - (12) - Jan. 6, 2003, 03:08:52 PM EST

Getting ASM from VC6 - (deSitter) - (11) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:06:35 PM EST

Results - (deSitter) - (10) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:25:49 PM EST

Request... - (ChrisR) - (9) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:34:54 PM EST

Re: Request... - (deSitter) - (8) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:36:04 PM EST

Trimming it down... - (ChrisR) - (7) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:57:34 PM EST

Re: Trimming it down... - (deSitter) - (6) - Jan. 6, 2003, 04:57:55 PM EST

Scratches head... - (ChrisR) - (5) - Jan. 6, 2003, 06:07:55 PM EST

Re: Scratches head... - (deSitter) - (4) - Jan. 6, 2003, 08:51:33 PM EST

Thanks... - (ChrisR) - (3) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:27:16 PM EST

BTW - (deSitter) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:29:58 PM EST

Hmmmm - (ChrisR) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:10:48 PM EST

puts("42"); -NT - (deSitter) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:21:20 PM EST

gcc 2.95.26 - (ChrisR) - Jan. 6, 2003, 06:13:49 PM EST

Did you try it with optimizations off? -NT - (deSitter) - (7) - Jan. 4, 2003, 01:12:28 PM EST

A really good optimizing compiler... - (ChrisR) - (6) - Jan. 4, 2003, 01:21:38 PM EST

Yes.. - (deSitter) - Jan. 4, 2003, 01:35:10 PM EST

Compiler has no way to predict how pow() is implemented - (Arkadiy) - (4) - Jan. 5, 2003, 02:13:15 PM EST

IEEE - (deSitter) - (2) - Jan. 5, 2003, 02:23:03 PM EST

pow() is library, not hardware - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Jan. 5, 2003, 07:14:41 PM EST

True - (deSitter) - Jan. 5, 2003, 07:38:57 PM EST

Re: Compiler has no way to predict how pow() is implemented - (deSitter) - Jan. 5, 2003, 08:57:17 PM EST

An option of interest? - (ChrisR) - (3) - Jan. 4, 2003, 01:13:29 PM EST

I'll look into that. Datum: gcc 3.2.1 on glibc 2.3.1 -NT - (admin) - Jan. 4, 2003, 05:56:33 PM EST

Doesn't seem to make any difference. - (admin) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:12:59 AM EST

Re: Doesn't seem to make any difference. - (deSitter) - Jan. 6, 2003, 11:36:57 AM EST

Not a direct answer, but still on-topic. - (static) - Jan. 4, 2003, 04:52:08 AM EST

RESOLUTION: - (admin) - (10) - Jan. 6, 2003, 07:34:23 PM EST

A caveat from Borland: - (a6l6e6x) - (6) - Jan. 6, 2003, 08:14:49 PM EST

This was slightly different. - (admin) - (5) - Jan. 6, 2003, 08:17:18 PM EST

Re: This was slightly different. - (deSitter) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:11:32 PM EST

Oh - to discover a real compiler problem - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:36:04 PM EST

This is not considered a compiler problem by the GCC folks. - (admin) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:18:20 PM EST

Scott, that's a bug worthy of catching - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:34:21 PM EST

Fun to track down, at least. - (admin) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:37:27 PM EST

Re: RESOLUTION: - (deSitter) - (2) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:03:59 PM EST

Historically speaking... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Jan. 6, 2003, 09:53:48 PM EST

Re: Historically speaking... - (deSitter) - Jan. 6, 2003, 10:04:39 PM EST

Welcome to IWETHEY!