|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367009 is a reply to message #367005] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 09:32   |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:10:03 +0100
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 27/04/2018 22:33, Charles Richmond wrote:
>> True should return *one*... zero is false.
>>
>
> Nah ... -1 otherwise NOT TRUE will not be the same
> as FALSE, unless only a single bit is used as the
> logic representation.
In C the convention is 0 false, non=zero true, in shell it is the
other way round. Strange considering that both conventions come from the
same place and approximate time.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367015 is a reply to message #367009] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 11:12 |
scott
Messages: 4272
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:10:03 +0100
> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/2018 22:33, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> True should return *one*... zero is false.
>>>
>>
>> Nah ... -1 otherwise NOT TRUE will not be the same
>> as FALSE, unless only a single bit is used as the
>> logic representation.
>
> In C the convention is 0 false, non=zero true, in shell it is the
> other way round. Strange considering that both conventions come from the
> same place and approximate time.
Not so bad when you consider '0' as success, rather than true. The
utility named 'true' returns success to the shell by returning 0.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367016 is a reply to message #366982] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 11:14 |
scott
Messages: 4272
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>> \> ldd /bin/true
>> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffcc69d3000)
>> libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f5648bd8000)
>> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f56491b8000)
>
>> "true" is a bash builtin so the "linux version" is NOT /bin/true.
>
> Skipping over the people that don't use bash, and the scripts that
> use /bin/true rather than the builtin, ...
>
> int
> main (int argc, char **argv)
> {
> /* Recognize --help or --version only if it's the only command-line
> argument. */
> if (argc == 2)
> {
> initialize_main (&argc, &argv);
> set_program_name (argv[0]);
> setlocale (LC_ALL, "");
> bindtextdomain (PACKAGE, LOCALEDIR);
> textdomain (PACKAGE);
>
> /* Note true(1) will return EXIT_FAILURE in the
> edge case where writes fail with GNU specific options. */
> atexit (close_stdout);
>
> if (STREQ (argv[1], "--help"))
> usage (EXIT_STATUS);
>
> if (STREQ (argv[1], "--version"))
> version_etc (stdout, PROGRAM_NAME, PACKAGE_NAME, Version, AUTHORS,
> (char *) NULL);
> }
>
> return EXIT_STATUS;
> }
not on fedora:
$ ltrace true
__libc_start_main(0x401260, 1, 0x7fff32d19f28, 0x403420, 0x403410 <unfinished ...>
exit(0 <unfinished ...>
+++ exited (status 0) +++
Note the lack of a setlocale() call.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367017 is a reply to message #367003] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 12:06 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:40:18 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
<notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:39:27 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:33:29 -0500
[snip]
>>> True should return *one*... zero is false.
>>
>> In C yes, but the value returned by main is handed to the
> execution
>> environment, in this case a shell where 0 is true and any non-zero
> value
>> false.
> -1 is true all else is false. Bring back ones complement! </loony
> heretic>
That is *two's* complement. Please get your heresy right.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367023 is a reply to message #367017] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 14:16 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5354
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2018-04-28, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 10:40:18 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
> <notsaying@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 23:39:27 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:33:29 -0500
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> True should return *one*... zero is false.
>>>
>>> In C yes, but the value returned by main is handed to the
>>> execution environment, in this case a shell where 0 is true and
>>> any non-zero value false.
>
>> -1 is true all else is false. Bring back ones complement!
>> </loony heretic>
>
> That is *two's* complement. Please get your heresy right.
"Two's complement, three's a crowd." -- Stan Kelly-Bootle
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ Fight low-contrast text in web pages! http://contrastrebellion.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367036 is a reply to message #367015] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 14:33 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4946
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 15:12:24 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:10:03 +0100
>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>> <headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/04/2018 22:33, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>> True should return *one*... zero is false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nah ... -1 otherwise NOT TRUE will not be the same
>>> as FALSE, unless only a single bit is used as the
>>> logic representation.
>>
>> In C the convention is 0 false, non=zero true, in shell it is the
>> other way round. Strange considering that both conventions come from the
>> same place and approximate time.
>
> Not so bad when you consider '0' as success, rather than true. The
> utility named 'true' returns success to the shell by returning 0.
Oh don't get me wrong both contexts make sense in themselves, it's
just the juxtaposition that makes it seem odd.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367044 is a reply to message #367033] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 15:25 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:49:31 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Name one program sold by _anybody_ that is "100% guaranteed to work
>> pefectly".
>
> Everything I wrote.
And how much of this was actually _sold_ and do you have a copy of
this guarantee that was provided available anywhere?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367069 is a reply to message #367022] |
Sat, 28 April 2018 18:44 |
Gene Wirchenko
Messages: 1166
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:31:18 +0100, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
<headstone255.but.not.these.five.words@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28/04/2018 17:06, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>
>> That is *two's* complement. Please get your heresy right.
>
> ISTR 1s complement = 2 values of 0
>
> 2s complement = no value of +32768 (in 16 bit)
Quite. Two's complement in n bits has values from -(2^(n-1)) to
+(2^(n-1)-1). For one bit, this would be -1 to 0.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #367156 is a reply to message #367016] |
Mon, 30 April 2018 19:26 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Robert Munyer
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) writes:
>> Skipping over the people that don't use bash, and the scripts that
>> use /bin/true rather than the builtin, ...
>>
>> int
>> main (int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> /* Recognize --help or --version only if it's the only command-line
>> argument. */
>> if (argc == 2)
>> {
>> initialize_main (&argc, &argv);
>> set_program_name (argv[0]);
>> setlocale (LC_ALL, "");
>> bindtextdomain (PACKAGE, LOCALEDIR);
>> textdomain (PACKAGE);
>>
>> /* Note true(1) will return EXIT_FAILURE in the
>> edge case where writes fail with GNU specific options. */
>> atexit (close_stdout);
>>
>> if (STREQ (argv[1], "--help"))
>> usage (EXIT_STATUS);
>>
>> if (STREQ (argv[1], "--version"))
>> version_etc (stdout, PROGRAM_NAME, PACKAGE_NAME, Version, AUTHORS,
>> (char *) NULL);
>> }
>>
>> return EXIT_STATUS;
>> }
>
> not on fedora:
>
> $ ltrace true
> __libc_start_main(0x401260, 1, 0x7fff32d19f28, 0x403420, 0x403410 <unfinished ...>
> exit(0 <unfinished ...>
> +++ exited (status 0) +++
>
>
> Note the lack of a setlocale() call.
I think your test case activated the wrong execution path, causing
setlocale to be absent from the trace even if your executable file
had been compiled from the exact source code that Dennis posted.
--
e-mail: the TLD is COM, the subdomain is my surname,
and the local-part is the product of 191773 and 48271.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tahoe and Alpha Architectures [message #369460 is a reply to message #366758] |
Sat, 23 June 2018 17:21 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bud Frede
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
> On 04/24/2018 02:13 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> If some PC maker used a different architecture chip for its new
>> computer, then I would have to buy new copies of software for it.
>> Software is not usually sold as source code. That would be too easy
>> to pirate.
>
> DEC released FX!32 to run x86 (Win32) programs on Windows NT on alpha.
>
> Windows NT 4.x shipped with binaries for multiple architectures on the
> same CD-ROM and used the same CD-KEY.
Sorry for the late reply...
I had an Alphastation and tried the betas of Windows 2000 on it. Yes,
it did have FX!32, but it was slooooowwww... even after you'd run the
Windows software multiple times.
I quickly wiped Windows off and put Red Hat on instead. I was much
happier with the performance of Linux on that system.
Even the native apps that came with Windows 2K for Alpha were slow and
not very usable.
I didn't do any benchmarking or formal testing, but I did observe that
Win 2K on x86 hardware generally performed better than NT 4 did. So I
felt that it wasn't Win 2K itself that was slow, but rather the Win 2K
port to Alpha that had problems.
It was an Alphastation 200 4/233 and I put a Matrox Millenium graphics
card in it. It was quite fast running Linux, but a dog when running
Windows.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
