true, I have chosen to ignore it. It doesn't actually show that C is portable, just that you can write code to make it portable. It doesn't help that the native data types are not portable as in they are not defined and can be different depending on the machine the compiler is aimed at.
In message , "dennis@home" writes
Yes, I can see that you enjoy that underachieving window licking dull life of yours
The life and times of a telephone tester ...
No dennis, really, its not. I've done the working for someone else bit
Its just that you don't know any different. If you'd ever achieved anything in your life, you'd know different
f*ck, but you're a sad wanker
What the *f*ck* does that mean.
Now I see why everyone else here thinks you are a yo-yo.
I'll leave you to your delusions now.
You jest, sire. Every micro instruction set is nastier than IBM 360
So that's what you aspire to be. Well don't let me stop you. I have never tested a telephone in my life and wouldn't know how to. Not that I couldn't find out in a day or so.
8<
Tell you what geof, you run your life without using anything I have worked on/contributed to and see how far you get.
Unlikely. In 1968 I was introduced to the IBM 360 instruction set and concluded it was s**te. Since then I've been exposed to many more instruction sets of various machines. 360 is definitely right up there with the worst.
Shush, he will never take his meds now..
the language is. hardware specific code never is whatever the language
Natsemi. They were reasonably nice chips and a few vendors did adopt them (e.g. Whitechapel, Sequent, Tektronix), but IIRC their interrupt handling was pretty poor so they weren't *that* good for general-purpose use, even though instruction execution rate and bus width was very good.
TMS9900 maybe? Sounds familiar anyway - I used to have some early '80s OCR equipment which used one.
Well, that's the way it should be, surely? Tailored to the specific hardware, not set in stone at a certain amount.
cheers
Jules
I just realised why you have a spill-proof keyboard.
your '1' key appears to be broken.
In article , Jules Richardson writes
Subtle. :-)
In article , Jules Richardson writes
s/spill/drool/
In article , The Natural Philosopher writes
Slightly related:
Windows, (n): 32-bit extension and graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
In article , Huge writes
Pretty sure they had the 8086, but a popular upgrade was the NEC V20, which had some of the 80186 instructions.
In article , The Natural Philosopher writes
Then Intel brought out the crippled 386sx (= a 286 in drag).
Glad to see you finally agree that C code can be portable.
Any code, in any language, might not be protable if written by an idiot.
You use the data types that are well defined to be portable.
MBQ
irg$qvd$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net...
It sounds like youo are trying to overlay C structurs onto physical hardware.
only a complete f**kwit does that if they want the code to be portable.
MBQ
Oh, that's hysterical. dennis posts 2 lines of code and one of them's got a bug in it.
Oddly enough I've avoided IBM mainframes.
Though now you make me think back that far, the System25 was pretty odd. 1900 and 2900 much better than the Intel, as are PPC 6800 6809 68k and that weird TI graphics processor that has bit-specific addressing and I can't remember the number of. Vague feeling that 8051 wasn't too good.
Andy
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.