2013-04-01 00:24 Calyp has quit [Quit: gone working on freeconomy =o)]
2013-04-01 00:33 <whitequark> viric: sharc?
2013-04-01 00:34 <whitequark> like an evil child of sparc and sh-4?
2013-04-01 00:58 dlan^ has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
2013-04-01 01:36 dlan^ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 01:41 dlan^ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
2013-04-01 01:56 dlan^ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:07 <wpwrak> grmbl   echo '#define usb urb' >>include/linux/usb.h
2013-04-01 02:08 <wpwrak> about 80% of all failed compilations are because of that typo :-(
2013-04-01 02:13 porchaso0 has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:16 viric_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:20 LunaVorax has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 02:21 porchao has quit [*.net *.split]
2013-04-01 02:21 viric has quit [*.net *.split]
2013-04-01 02:39 Fallenou_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:40 panda|z has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:43 wpwrak has quit [Excess Flood]
2013-04-01 02:43 kill\switch has quit [Excess Flood]
2013-04-01 02:43 wpwrak has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:43 kill\switch has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 02:49 Fallenou has quit [*.net *.split]
2013-04-01 02:49 panda|znc has quit [*.net *.split]
2013-04-01 03:04 DocScrutinizer05 has quit [Disconnected by services]
2013-04-01 03:04 DocScrutinizer05 has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 03:37 baba has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 03:38 fire has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
2013-04-01 03:52 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 03:58 unclouded has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
2013-04-01 05:50 rz2k has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 06:32 unclouded has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 06:50 dlan^ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
2013-04-01 06:53 dlan^ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 07:40 valhalla has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
2013-04-01 07:46 valhalla has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 08:00 kilae has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 08:24 jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 08:45 <viric_> whitequark: I don't know. some dsp :)
2013-04-01 08:56 <larsc> viric_: no
2013-04-01 08:56 <larsc> whitequark: short for super hyper architecture or something like that ;)
2013-04-01 08:57 <larsc> it's a DSP from ADI
2013-04-01 08:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: fw/include/atusb/: move shared protocol definitions from ep0.h to atusb.h (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/12d3401
2013-04-01 08:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/board.h: de-duplicate USB ID definitions (now originate from atusb.h) (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/2d43876
2013-04-01 08:57 <wpwrak> Super Harvard Architecture ;-)
2013-04-01 09:00 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: fw/include/atusb/ep0.h (USB_TYPE_VENDOR): avoid conflict with /usr/include/usb.h (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/16dd767
2013-04-01 09:08 jekhor has quit [Read error: Operation timed out]
2013-04-01 09:10 <viric_> super harvard architecture, no?
2013-04-01 09:10 <viric_> although super hyper sounds nice ;)
2013-04-01 09:20 <larsc> yes, super harvard is correct
2013-04-01 09:21 <kyak> int array[100]; - is it a definition or merely a declaration?
2013-04-01 09:21 <viric_> definition
2013-04-01 09:21 <viric_> 'extern int array[100];' would be a declaration
2013-04-01 09:21 <kyak> so the memory gets allocated after this line of code, right?
2013-04-01 09:22 <viric_> yes
2013-04-01 09:22 <kyak> ok, i see
2013-04-01 09:22 viric_ is now known as viric
2013-04-01 09:23 <larsc> if it is a global variable the memory is always allocated for the lifetime of the program
2013-04-01 09:24 <viric> also, if in a function body, it's prefixed by 'static'
2013-04-01 09:25 <viric> but if you have:    int f(int array[100])    // it's different :)
2013-04-01 09:26 <kyak> yep, it's a declaration of function 'f'.. But shouldn't it be  int f(int array[])?
2013-04-01 09:26 <viric> it has a slightly different meaning
2013-04-01 09:26 <viric> if it includes the 100
2013-04-01 09:26 <kyak> whta is it?
2013-04-01 09:26 <viric> hm I've to think this one
2013-04-01 09:27 <larsc> so, for function parameters 'int array[X]' is the same as 'int *array'
2013-04-01 09:27 <larsc> at least for the generated code
2013-04-01 09:27 <viric> yes
2013-04-01 09:28 <larsc> but I think the typechecker might complain if you pass a int array[3] to a function that expects a int array[2]
2013-04-01 09:28 <viric> hm I don't think so
2013-04-01 09:29 <viric> For bidimensional, it's more clear:     int x[10][]    is different than   int **x
2013-04-01 09:30 <kyak> larsc: "the typechecker might complain" do you mean that the code won't compile (or give warnings)?
2013-04-01 09:31 <kyak> and then what's the difference between 'int *array' and 'int array[]' for function arguments?
2013-04-01 09:31 <larsc> give warnings, but it looks like i'm mistaken
2013-04-01 09:32 <larsc> the compiler compiles int array[3] as int *array
2013-04-01 09:32 <larsc> kyak: I think none
2013-04-01 09:32 <larsc> It just looks nicer ;)
2013-04-01 09:32 <viric> I agree
2013-04-01 09:33 <viric> it can become a difference in more dimensions, as I think "int array[][]" doesn't work.
2013-04-01 09:33 <lindi-> well if it is array[3] then the compiler can assume that you are not going to access array[-1] or array[3]?
2013-04-01 09:33 <viric> lindi-: but I remember there was something in the spec about that
2013-04-01 09:34 <viric> mh there is also: void fun(char buffer[static 2048])
2013-04-01 09:34 <kyak> oh common.. what's that?
2013-04-01 09:34 <kyak> 'static 2048' looks weird
2013-04-01 09:35 <viric> :)
2013-04-01 09:35 <viric> that asks the compiler "please check that there will be at least 2048"
2013-04-01 09:35 <viric> the compiler *may* then check.
2013-04-01 09:37 <kyak> so the compiler will check the caller? this seems too sophisticated for a compiler
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> *may*
2013-04-01 09:38 <kyak> viric: could you explain what's 'int **x'?
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> a pointer to pointers to int
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> kyak: do you know 'cdecl'?
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> install it :)
2013-04-01 09:38 <kyak> nope, i don't know; i'll check it out
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> cdecl> explain int **x
2013-04-01 09:38 <viric> declare x as pointer to pointer to int
2013-04-01 09:38 <kyak> oh, nice
2013-04-01 09:39 <larsc> or cdecl.org
2013-04-01 09:39 <kyak> cdecl> explain static 2048
2013-04-01 09:39 <kyak> syntax error
2013-04-01 09:39 <kyak> --)
2013-04-01 09:39 <viric> you can't write partial declarations! :)
2013-04-01 09:40 <kyak> nah, it doesn't understand the complete one (given by you above) as well
2013-04-01 09:40 <viric> mh bad
2013-04-01 09:41 <larsc> it doesn't understand function declarations at all
2013-04-01 09:41 <kyak> viric: so the multidimensional array is just a collection of pointers to simple arrays?
2013-04-01 09:42 <viric> kyak: *that* multidimensional (int **x) yes.
2013-04-01 09:42 <viric> but:    int x[2][3] isn't like that.
2013-04-01 09:43 <kyak> ah yeah, int x[2][3] is in contigous memory, if i remember
2013-04-01 09:43 <viric> like:    int f(int x[][3])
2013-04-01 09:43 <kyak> can we write int x[2][3][4]?
2013-04-01 09:43 <viric> yes
2013-04-01 09:43 <larsc> int a[2][3] and a[x][y] is like int a[6] and a[x * 3 + y]
2013-04-01 09:43 <viric> kyak: the Ansi C spec I have is 554 pages long. Imagine.
2013-04-01 09:44 <viric> kyak: what do you write?
2013-04-01 09:44 <kyak> viric: i'm currently one third through K&R, that's how much i know about ANSI C :)
2013-04-01 09:44 <viric> :) ok
2013-04-01 09:45 jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 09:45 <kyak> viric: i'm just studying a little bit, not writing anything at the moment
2013-04-01 09:45 <viric> ok
2013-04-01 09:45 <kyak> viric: btw, can you send me that ANSI C spec? I have the txt version, but it's not very convenient
2013-04-01 09:46 <viric> ok but don't tell anyone
2013-04-01 09:46 <kyak> even the police?
2013-04-01 09:46 <viric> the police may know already
2013-04-01 09:47 baba has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0]
2013-04-01 09:47 baba has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 09:55 jekhor has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 10:00 unclouded has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
2013-04-01 10:04 Calyp has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 10:21 jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 10:27 jekhor has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
2013-04-01 10:48 Calyp has quit [Quit: gone working on freeconomy =o)]
2013-04-01 11:00 <wpwrak> int array[2]; is equivalent to extern int array[2]; if in a global scope or equivalent to auto int array[2]; if in local scope. it never defaults to "static"
2013-04-01 11:01 LunaVorax has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 11:01 <wpwrak> furthermore, if "extern" and without initializer, it can be both declaration and definition. the linker picks one and makes that the actual definition.
2013-04-01 11:02 <wpwrak> if one has an initializer, then it becomes the definition. if more than one has an initializer, you get an error
2013-04-01 11:02 <viric> you can't have two modules, in global scope saying:     int array[2];
2013-04-01 11:03 <wpwrak> try it ;-)
2013-04-01 11:04 <viric> damn c :)
2013-04-01 11:04 <wpwrak> it's perfectly consistent :)
2013-04-01 11:04 <viric> gcc works
2013-04-01 11:04 <viric> in tcc, it fails
2013-04-01 11:04 <viric> error: 'array' defined twice
2013-04-01 11:05 <wpwrak> now we know which compiler complies to standards :)
2013-04-01 11:05 <viric> isn't it a linker thing?
2013-04-01 11:05 <viric> not compiler
2013-04-01 11:05 <wpwrak> well, the compiler has to let it pass
2013-04-01 11:06 <viric> I don't mean multiple "int array[2];" in a module
2013-04-01 11:06 <viric> I mean "int array[2];" in every module
2013-04-01 11:06 <wpwrak> you could actually have   int array[2]; int array[2]; int array[2]; and shouldn't get any complaint
2013-04-01 11:07 <wpwrak> there's no difference
2013-04-01 11:07 <viric> how not?
2013-04-01 11:07 <wpwrak> what you can't have is mire than int array[2] = { 0 };
2013-04-01 11:07 <wpwrak> more than one
2013-04-01 11:07 <viric> hm
2013-04-01 11:07 <viric> ok, gcc generates 'C' (nm naming) for "int array[2];"
2013-04-01 11:07 rjeffries has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
2013-04-01 11:07 <viric> while tcc generates 'B'
2013-04-01 11:08 <viric> c has lots of dark corners
2013-04-01 11:09 <wpwrak> just remember that you usually don't have to write "extern". then it all follows logically.
2013-04-01 11:09 <wpwrak> the only case where you NEED extern is if you're in a function-local scope and want to access something global (and are too cool to declare it at a global scope)
2013-04-01 11:10 <viric> maybe it's just about different versions of c?
2013-04-01 11:11 <wpwrak> yeah, those long before K&R may be different. and maybe once skynet takes over, it'll make some changes as well ;-)
2013-04-01 11:12 <wpwrak> and of course, non-standards-compliant compilers may also have some different ideas :)
2013-04-01 11:12 <viric> hehe you feel very sure
2013-04-01 11:12 <wpwrak> i think what confuses you is that you read "extern" as "this-is-a-declaration". this isn't what it means.
2013-04-01 11:12 <viric> ok
2013-04-01 11:12 <viric> we've to report to tcc then :)
2013-04-01 11:13 <wpwrak> it's common style to say explicitly "extern" when declaring a global variable. to make it clear to the human reader. but for the (compliant) compiler, this bears no meaning.
2013-04-01 11:14 <viric> I'll try clang
2013-04-01 11:20 <viric> ok, clang does 'right'
2013-04-01 11:27 <wpwrak> anything else would have surprised me :)
2013-04-01 11:30 <whitequark> wpwrak: um, I think that you do
2013-04-01 11:31 <whitequark> `int a;` translates to a COMMON linkage, whereas `extern int a;` to EXTERN (or however it's named)
2013-04-01 11:33 <wpwrak> in a global scope, where would you see a difference ?
2013-04-01 11:36 <whitequark> wpwrak: I'm fairly certain it has something to do with initializers.
2013-04-01 11:36 <wpwrak> yes. initializers change everything. they turn a declaration (which can implicitly become a definition) into an explicit definition
2013-04-01 11:36 megha has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 11:38 baba has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 11:43 <whitequark> wpwrak: yes, and I think that a declaration with `extern` cannot implicitly be changed to a definition.
2013-04-01 11:43 <whitequark> isn't that the point of `extern`?
2013-04-01 11:43 <whitequark> (in this context)
2013-04-01 11:44 <wpwrak> no.  also  int a;  (in global scope) mens exactly the same as  extern int a;
2013-04-01 11:44 <wpwrak> try it :) you can do it all in the same .c file
2013-04-01 11:47 <whitequark> wpwrak: nope :) https://gist.github.com/whitequark/90f490693e8e16752acf
2013-04-01 11:47 <whitequark> the symbols have different linkage. actually, `extern int a;` for some reason does not appear in the symbol table at all.
2013-04-01 11:52 <wpwrak> funny. but the effect is still the same. whether an unreferenced item actually gets placed in the object file is beyond the scope of the C standard :)
2013-04-01 11:52 <whitequark> ok ok :)
2013-04-01 11:53 <wpwrak> it's a bit surprising, though, that the compiler would actually make a difference here. not sure why. maybe it's for mixed-language programming
2013-04-01 12:11 <kyak> you know what? you make me feel good :) now i really am sure that you can't learn C
2013-04-01 12:11 <kyak> a lot of dark corners, as viric said
2013-04-01 12:12 <kyak> "one can't learn C", that's what i meant
2013-04-01 12:13 <kyak> also i have to read the above discussion again.. Got a bit lost
2013-04-01 12:15 <kyak> ok, so int array[2]; is a declaration if it is in a global scope?
2013-04-01 12:17 <wpwrak> ah no, there is actually a difference. it's not very clearly expressed in K&R 2nd ed., but "extern" removes the property of a declaration being a tentative definition. so what gcc does reflects this exactly.
2013-04-01 12:17 <kyak> what happens if i have int array[2]; int array[2]; and then have array[2] = { 0 };? Which one of them will be defined?
2013-04-01 12:18 <wpwrak> in other words, in global scope, you can always change "extern FOO;" to "FOO;" but you can only sometimes change "FOO;" to "extern FOO;"
2013-04-01 12:19 <wpwrak> kyak: there are three types:  extern int a; /* declaration */  int a = 0; /* declaration and definition */  int a; /* declaration and tentative definition */
2013-04-01 12:20 rz2k has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
2013-04-01 12:20 <wpwrak> you can have any number of declarations and any number of tentative definitions but only zero or one (non-tentative) definition. and if you're actually using the thing, you need at least one definition, be it tentative or not.
2013-04-01 12:21 <wpwrak> so  int a; int a; int a; int a;  is okay
2013-04-01 12:22 <whitequark> by the way
2013-04-01 12:22 <wpwrak> extern int a; extern int a; extern int a;  is okay too. but you don't have a definition yet. if you want one, you need either int a; or int a = something;
2013-04-01 12:22 <kyak> ok, but how are tentative defintions work together?
2013-04-01 12:22 <whitequark> wpwrak, you seem to like C, Unix tools and perversions
2013-04-01 12:22 <whitequark> wpwrak: you'll like this description of Ruby's lexer: http://whitequark.org/blog/2013/04/01/ruby-hacking-guide-ch-11-finite-state-lexer/
2013-04-01 12:22 <wpwrak> the linker merges the tentative definitions into one
2013-04-01 12:23 <kyak> wpwrak: ok, now it's more clear
2013-04-01 12:23 <kyak> thanks!
2013-04-01 12:24 <kyak> is it how it's called in K&R - tentative definition? Or is it implicit definition?
2013-04-01 12:25 jurting has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 12:25 <wpwrak> that's how K&R call it
2013-04-01 12:26 <wpwrak> whitequark: it's always fun to lex languages where newlines act as terminators :)
2013-04-01 12:27 <wpwrak> especially since you generally don't want to do the python thing :)
2013-04-01 12:44 <whitequark> wpwrak: oh there's more
2013-04-01 12:45 <whitequark> I especially like the joke about "(ab)using [lookahead] LALR(1) up to (1)"
2013-04-01 12:45 <whitequark> (also the dude who translated it is awesome.)
2013-04-01 12:45 <whitequark> *[lookahead in]
2013-04-01 13:33 jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 13:50 woakas has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
2013-04-01 13:51 jurting has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
2013-04-01 13:52 Jurting_pc2 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
2013-04-01 14:03 woakas has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 14:38 Calyp has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:03 rz2k has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:03 kuribas has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:16 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
2013-04-01 15:22 emeb has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:23 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:26 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:33 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
2013-04-01 15:35 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 15:41 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 15:42 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 16:07 DocScrutinizer05 is now known as sysbot
2013-04-01 16:08 sb0 has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 16:09 <sb0> hi wolfspraul, sharism.cc is still down ...
2013-04-01 16:10 sysbot is now known as DocScrutinizer05
2013-04-01 16:14 <wpwrak> the killer easter bunny ate it :)
2013-04-01 16:26 pcercuei has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
2013-04-01 16:29 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 16:42 kristianpaul has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
2013-04-01 16:43 <kyak> i continue to open new things for myself. How do you like this mixed variable/function declaration: double sum, atof(char []); Also it is interesting that we can declare functions inside a calling function
2013-04-01 16:44 <kyak> in fact, i don't know yet if it any different to declaring the function outside of the calling function (but in the same file scope)
2013-04-01 16:45 <pcercuei> It is cleaner to declare it outside, I think
2013-04-01 16:46 <kyak> so it seems to be a matter of personal taste
2013-04-01 16:56 <pcercuei> larsc, I have a question
2013-04-01 16:59 <pcercuei> larsc: I want to create a joystick driver for opendingux, so that the buttons of the gcw0 return joystick events instead of key events. The front buttons could use gpio-keys with no problem, but the analog stick would have to be integrated as well on the driver; is there a way I can smartly re-use gpio-keys from another driver without duplicating all of its code?
2013-04-01 17:01 <pcercuei> and still having the front buttons and the analog appear on the same joystick device...
2013-04-01 17:02 FrankBlues has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 17:19 jurting has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 17:23 <wpwrak> kyak: with local declarations, you risk creating homonymous but incompatible types
2013-04-01 17:26 jurting has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
2013-04-01 17:50 wej has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 17:55 <kyak> wpwrak: do you mean declaring a function that would shadow existing declaration? Wouldn't it be caught by compiler?
2013-04-01 17:56 <wpwrak> i was thinking more of structs, enums, and unions.
2013-04-01 17:56 <pcercuei> kyak: not if you use weak functions, I think
2013-04-01 17:56 <kyak> i don't think i understand you..
2013-04-01 17:56 <wpwrak> and shadows will be caught if -Wshadow is set
2013-04-01 17:57 <kyak> pcercuei: what is a weak function?
2013-04-01 17:59 <wpwrak> fox example this: http://pastebin.com/v4sYLSin
2013-04-01 17:59 kuribas has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)]
2013-04-01 17:59 <wpwrak> you can make all sorts of variations of this theme
2013-04-01 17:59 <pcercuei> kyak: it's a GCC feature (are you talking about C/C++?): a "weak" function is a function that can be redefined
2013-04-01 18:00 <kyak> wpwrak: let me take a minute to think about it :)
2013-04-01 18:00 <kyak> pcercuei: i see, it's an interesting concept. Some short googling says that it is specific to ARM
2013-04-01 18:01 <wpwrak> kyak: it's a bit of a brain twister ;-)
2013-04-01 18:02 <pcercuei> kyak: hmmm I think it works on more architectures
2013-04-01 18:03 <pcercuei> from the GCC manual: "Weak symbols are supported for ELF targets"
2013-04-01 18:06 <kyak> pcercuei: yea, the information i found is not about GCC compiler at all, sorry for confision :)
2013-04-01 18:07 <pcercuei> ok
2013-04-01 18:08 pcercuei has quit [Quit: Bye]
2013-04-01 18:12 <kyak> wpwrak: so here is your trick. You call the 'foo' function from main. Compiler knows it is a function because it is an expression followed by a left parentheses. You pass a 'bar' structure into the 'foo' function, and the 'bar' structure is also named 'foo' by some evil genius. This structure is global scope. What's interesting in 'foo' function is that you declare the 'foo' structure again in the parameter list.
2013-04-01 18:13 <kyak> this last trick doesn't really work, the compiler returns error: incompatible type for argument 1 of 'foo'
2013-04-01 18:14 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
2013-04-01 18:17 <wpwrak> yup. here's a version that looks less suspicious but has exactly the same problem: http://pastebin.com/b5QPEmwP
2013-04-01 18:17 <wpwrak> (also note the barrage of compiler complaints :)
2013-04-01 18:23 <kyak> and here''s a compilable version: http://codepad.org/pRQ9K5Qq :)
2013-04-01 18:26 <wpwrak> yes. get rid of the implicit local declaration of the struct and all works :)
2013-04-01 18:28 <kyak> wpwrak: here's a little trick for you: char abc[3] = "abc"; - what's going to be the size of abc and what would be inside?
2013-04-01 18:28 LunaVorax has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
2013-04-01 18:28 LunaVorax_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 18:29 LunaVorax_ is now known as LunaVorax
2013-04-01 18:30 <wpwrak> size will be 3. content .. hmm. checking k&r ...
2013-04-01 18:31 <wpwrak> it's probably a special case
2013-04-01 18:31 <kyak> yeah
2013-04-01 18:32 <wpwrak> yup. A8.7 "As a special case [...]" :)
2013-04-01 18:33 wej has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
2013-04-01 18:35 <kyak> hm, actually it doesn't really explain in K&R
2013-04-01 18:36 <kyak> char abc[] = "abc"; //abc size is 4
2013-04-01 18:36 <kyak> char abc[3] = "abc"; //abc size is 3
2013-04-01 18:37 <wpwrak> it does :)
2013-04-01 18:37 <kyak> i'm reading the paragraph again :)
2013-04-01 18:38 wej has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 18:39 <kyak> oh yes
2013-04-01 18:54 <wpwrak> nice. killed the kernel so hard it didn't even make a sound :)
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: fw/include/atusb/ep0.h: protect also USB_DIR_IN and USB_DIR_OUT (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/3e749c3
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/mac.c (handle_irq): only handle TRX_END; never fall back to seq ints (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/60ee82b
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/mac.c (handle_irq): move frame reception to separate function (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/d76bdf6
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/include/atusb/usb-ids.h: remove (and adapt former users) (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/dab0d18
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: include/atusb/atusb.h: salvage cute explanation of 0x1540 from usb-ids.h (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/ad70d7c
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/mac.c: queue frame reception if USB is busy (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/65722d4
2013-04-01 18:57 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: atusb/fw/usb/: enable MCU reset on USB bus reset after config selection (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/9b2696b
2013-04-01 19:07 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 19:21 jekhor has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
2013-04-01 19:28 rz2k has quit []
2013-04-01 19:28 <viric> wpwrak: I fed the tcc list
2013-04-01 19:28 <viric> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2013-04/threads.html
2013-04-01 19:29 LunaVorax has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 19:30 <viric> wpwrak: I found the mention in the ansi: 6.9.2.2
2013-04-01 19:30 <viric> hm sorry. ISO/IEC 9899:1999
2013-04-01 19:32 <wpwrak> now the question is whether they interpreted it correctly :)
2013-04-01 19:32 <wpwrak> because ... if you declare it such that it's visible at the time of use, tcc will get it right
2013-04-01 19:33 <viric> 6.9.2.2 is quite clear
2013-04-01 19:33 <viric> but that's for c99 I guess.
2013-04-01 19:34 <viric> no idea of c11
2013-04-01 19:36 <wpwrak> so is the understanding that tcc is right or wrong ? from the thread it isn't quite clear
2013-04-01 19:37 <wpwrak> ah, one more post :)
2013-04-01 19:38 megha has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
2013-04-01 19:42 <viric> yes, the last one
2013-04-01 19:42 <viric> the key is 'tentative'
2013-04-01 19:47 <wpwrak> yup :)
2013-04-01 19:48 FrankBlues has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
2013-04-01 19:48 pcercuei has quit [Quit: Bye]
2013-04-01 19:53 megha has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 19:56 <whitequark> please do remember that tcc was originally written for IOCCC
2013-04-01 19:56 <whitequark> that is, Obfuscated C Code Contest.
2013-04-01 19:56 <viric> yes sure
2013-04-01 19:57 <viric> but it evolved. :)
2013-04-01 19:58 kilae has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.90 [Firefox 19.0.2/20130307023931]]
2013-04-01 20:01 LunaVorax has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 20:23 <wpwrak> projects.qi-hardware.com down, too ?
2013-04-01 20:23 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: ircstat/ML: update for 3/2013 (master) http://qi-hw.com/p/wernermisc/8eee093
2013-04-01 20:24 <wpwrak> ah no, just a glitch
2013-04-01 20:32 jekhor has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 21:22 megha has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.0]
2013-04-01 21:27 * hellekin love glitch
2013-04-01 21:40 <wpwrak> yeah, the best part of false alarms is usually the moment when you realize they're false :)
2013-04-01 22:13 LunaVorax has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
2013-04-01 22:28 jekhor has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
2013-04-01 22:30 sb0 has quit [Quit: Leaving]
2013-04-01 22:47 pcercuei has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 22:48 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 22:56 Calyp has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
2013-04-01 22:59 xiangfu has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
2013-04-01 22:59 Calyp has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 22:59 Calyp has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
2013-04-01 23:00 xiangfu has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:14 mth_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:14 apelete_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:16 wolfspra1l has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:16 Jay7x has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:17 kyak_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:17 kyak_ has quit [Changing host]
2013-04-01 23:17 kyak_ has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:17 kyak has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:21 apelete has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:21 Jay7 has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:21 wolfspraul has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:21 mth has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:23 mth_ is now known as mth
2013-04-01 23:29 xiangfu has quit [Quit: leaving]
2013-04-01 23:35 porchao has joined #qi-hardware
2013-04-01 23:35 porchaso0 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
2013-04-01 23:36 Markvilla has joined #qi-hardware