://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#41 Fast and Safe C Strings: User
friendly C macros to Declare and use C Strings
the initial implementation and would get about 44kbyte/sec consuming
most of a 3090 processor. i then added the support for rfc1044 and some
tuning tests at cray research was getting channel speed
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#41 Fast and Safe C Strings: User
friendly C macros to Declare and use C Strings.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/17/2007
at 10:08 AM, Clem Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What is needed is for ANSI to bite the bullet and fix the problem.
The use of trailing zero as a delimiter, like the confusion between
arrays and pointers, is omnipresent in the C world. I see no practical
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes:
The use of trailing zero as a delimiter, like the confusion between
arrays and pointers, is omnipresent in
Hi Paul,
The macros are not compatible (I suspect) with PL/I or BPX1*. For some
years, using Borland compilers, I managed to get the 2 byte length field
just in front of the string. I couldn't use a structure, which would
have guaranteed the position because then the debugger and all the
In a recent note, Clem Clarke said:
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:08:37 +0800
What is needed is for ANSI to bite the bullet and fix the problem. Or
for someone big, like IBM to do it, and force a standard change. (As an
aside, there is a language called D, which has a length word for
Yes.
I dropped the same message into a C newsgroup. Some of the people
recognized the problem, but essentially they don't care, I think. I
guess if you have heaps of computing power at your fingertips in the way
of Linux boxes, and if they aren't doing the same sort of work as most
Z/OS
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04/13/2007
at 03:11 PM, Clem Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some 20 years ago, it became clear that C strings were not as safe,
nor as fast, as strings in PL/I, Assembler or Pascal.
The same applies to C arrays in general. The confusion between arrays
and pointers,
Some 20 years ago, it became clear that C strings were not as safe, nor
as fast, as strings in PL/I, Assembler or Pascal.
The primary reasons are that one needs to find the current length of a
string before or during a copy process - this is very time consuming.
Secondly, there is no way of
In a recent note, Clem Clarke said:
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:11:45 +0800
I have spent some years studying this problem and have developed some
User friendly C macros that solve the problem.
These are reminiscent of the StrAllocCat, StrAllocCopy, et. al.
family of string functions
10 matches
Mail list logo
