Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: Richard <rgrdev_@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:01:47 +0100
"Bartc" <bartc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Walter Banks" <walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49B8365A.165EBD7B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Richard Heathfield wrote:
When a programming language designer allows you to do something a
small number of times (but more than once), that's unreasonable. In
C's case, the obvious candidate is the six-unique-characters
limitation in C90 linkers, and this is a flaw not so much of C as
of ISO.
Its origins go back to early tool sets. The Honeywell 6000 stored
6 characters in a 36 bit word later 4 9 bit chars in the same word.
PDP 8's stored two characters in 12 bit words and some PDP11
linkers which had a 6 character limit in external symbols. The linker
had 40 symbols in the supported character set and could encode
6 characters in 2 16 bit numbers.
I remember the use of 'sixbit' on the 36-bit pdp10, giving 6
upper-case characters per word. And this seemed to pervade everything
including filenames and program variables.
Far from being a limitation, it made some text processing (and
compiler work in my case) easy and very efficient. Made easier by the
users at the time accepting the six-character limit on names.
Come off it Bart, of course it was a limitation. The "efficiency" offset
by the obvious limitations imposed by striving to get a meaningful name
into 6 characters.
--
You can’t prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
It’s really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar.
.
- References:
- conservative static region allocator...
- From: Chris M. Thomasson
- Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: nick_keighley_nospam
- Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: Walter Banks
- Re: conservative static region allocator...
- From: Bartc
- conservative static region allocator...
- Prev by Date: Re: conservative static region allocator...
- Next by Date: Re: On the development of C
- Previous by thread: Re: conservative static region allocator...
- Next by thread: Re: conservative static region allocator...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|