How should NULL be defined on a machine which uses a nonzero bit pattern as the internal representation of a null pointer?
The same as on any other machine: as 0 (or ((void *)0)).
Whenever a programmer requests a null pointer, either by writing ``0'' or ``NULL,'' it is the compiler's responsibility to generate whatever bit pattern the machine uses for that null pointer. Therefore, #defining NULL as 0 on a machine for which internal null pointers are nonzero is as valid as on any other: the compiler must always be able to generate the machine's correct null pointers in response to unadorned 0's seen in pointer contexts. See also questions 5.2, 5.10, and 5.17.
References: ANSI Sec. 4.1.5 ISO Sec. 7.1.6 Rationale Sec. 4.1.5
You could define NULL to be 0xFFFFFFFF (i.e. -1), a pointer with that value must still equal 0.
void* x = 0xFFFFFFFF; if (x == 0)
printf("0xFFFFFFFF == 0");
could print "0xFFFFFFFF == 0" on some strange architecture, and I have read that there exist som odd architecture that uses a binary value that is _not_ equal to all zeroes.
It firmly belive that we would not be where we are today in nuclear physics without experiments. Yes the atomic bomb is one of those "experiments". CERN is another.
> Why do we have to start with our own species? We don't, we have done it on all kinds of animals, but for curing some deseases that only exist on humans we have to do test on humans. Even if the desease exist on other animals we must at one time test it on humans ass well (AIDS humans/apes)
> if we don't care for human embryos now, what > makes you think we will always care for other > humans later?
I dont care for human embryos that are going to die, many peoply do though, and I hope these people will see what this kind of research can do for mankind.
> What will happen next is what worries me. I > don't want to see a world where already-born > human babies are experimented with.
I think it is okey. I understand that most people don't think its okey. But if a dead child can cure someone, and the childs parents want, I think its okey. I do belive that one thing that is realy inportant is that no money can be involved.
I have big problem with people fiddle around with genetics. But you do have to think about what is good and what is bad. I have *no* problem whatsoever with cloning though I have serious problem with modifying genes that are inherited.
Go ahead and clone cells for cancer treatment, and deseases, but wait with messing with genes that will be left for all comming generations (at least untill we really know what we are doing.
Sadly, it seams to be the other way around, mix genes of fish with potatoes, modify corn etc, things that *may* cause severe problems in the future people seams to accept. But when you *clone* something, everyone screams, think about our children, when it is realy totaly harmless
Most of the good free and good things is nothing special of OSX, What has Apple done that is now free? yes, some programs, but none that I use. Most of the open stuff in OSX is Mach, BSD or GNU.
So why should I use OSX, because it runs *Microsoft* office, and other non free software!
I feel fine running BSD and Linux, if I wanted to run propertary software I would use Windows.
Well, if you buy a "brand" computer you will pay microsoft tax, however you can buy many computers without windows. This is not true for Mac; if you buy a Mac you *will* pay for OSX. Even if you could by a mac without OS (I doubt it) you would pay for the OS anyway cause Apple has a Monopoly on the hardware and much of the "hardware cost" go to software development.
Actually I belive the trading quotas for polution is based on the polution levels when the treaty was writen. That would give US *big* quotas, much bigger than EU for example, but i could be wrong.
The problem with monolithic kernels like OSX and Linux is that all the kernel space driver has to be mounted by root. THAT is the big problem.
When you can mount filesystems as a normal user (like the Hurd), then I feel that the OS is the right place. You will have to have an OS that supports user space filesytems though.
Slashdot Mirror
Chechnya is not a part of europe.
No, it really is _much_ slower to compile c++
Question 5.5
How should NULL be defined on a machine which uses a nonzero bit pattern as the internal representation of a null pointer?
The same as on any other machine: as 0 (or ((void *)0)).
Whenever a programmer requests a null pointer, either by writing ``0'' or ``NULL,'' it is the compiler's responsibility to generate whatever bit pattern the machine uses for that null pointer. Therefore, #defining NULL as 0 on a machine for which internal null pointers are nonzero is as valid as on any other: the compiler must always be able to generate the machine's correct null pointers in response to unadorned 0's seen in pointer contexts. See also questions 5.2, 5.10, and 5.17.
References: ANSI Sec. 4.1.5
ISO Sec. 7.1.6
Rationale Sec. 4.1.5
(http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/q5.5.html)
You could define NULL to be 0xFFFFFFFF (i.e. -1), a pointer with that value must still equal 0.
void* x = 0xFFFFFFFF;
if (x == 0)
printf("0xFFFFFFFF == 0");
could print "0xFFFFFFFF == 0" on some strange architecture, and I have read that there exist
som odd architecture that uses a binary value
that is _not_ equal to all zeroes.
But then you are breaking a local law, and not a copyright.
It firmly belive that we would not be where we
are today in nuclear physics without experiments.
Yes the atomic bomb is one of those "experiments".
CERN is another.
> Why do we have to start with our own species?
We don't, we have done it on all kinds of animals, but for curing some deseases that only exist on humans we have to do test on humans. Even if the
desease exist on other animals we must at one time
test it on humans ass well (AIDS humans/apes)
> if we don't care for human embryos now, what
> makes you think we will always care for other
> humans later?
I dont care for human embryos that are going
to die, many peoply do though, and I hope these
people will see what this kind of research can
do for mankind.
> What will happen next is what worries me. I
> don't want to see a world where already-born
> human babies are experimented with.
I think it is okey. I understand that most
people don't think its okey. But if a dead child
can cure someone, and the childs parents want,
I think its okey. I do belive that one thing
that is realy inportant is that no money can be
involved.
I have big problem with people fiddle around with genetics. But you do have to think about what is good and what is bad. I have *no* problem whatsoever with
cloning though I have serious problem with modifying genes that are inherited.
Go ahead and clone cells for cancer treatment, and deseases, but wait with messing with genes that will
be left for all comming generations (at least untill we really know what we are doing.
Sadly, it seams to be the other way around, mix genes of fish with potatoes, modify corn etc, things that *may* cause severe problems in the
future people seams to accept. But when you
*clone* something, everyone screams, think about our children, when it is realy totaly harmless
>...but I think with the current
>knowledge of this subject...
How can we gain knowledge if we don't do research?
Comparing to unix...
Its not much harder though.
The library part of OSX, that GNUStep implements, is
*not* *in any way* open source.
It runs on Linux and most of the other unixes.
In this case it is on a GNU/Linux live cd
nah, Mac OS X is not i microkernel design.
It uses MACH as a HAL, not for message passing.
And it got a fucked up filesystem hiarchy.
> Umm, I have yet to hear one negative comment
> regarding Aqua interfaces (done right).
Icons on the red, green and yellow buttons are first
seen when you have the mouse pointer over them.
I belive this is *negative*.
What is wrong with ext2? ext3 is comming.
What is lacking is soundcard support and pcmcia.
"does Stable ship with a kernel which supports dual xeon machines with 2 GB ram? AMD Opteron? Modern chipsets? SCSI controllers?"
Yes
Most of the good free and good things is nothing special of OSX, What has Apple done that is now free? yes, some programs, but none that I use. Most of the open stuff in OSX is Mach, BSD or GNU.
So why should I use OSX, because it runs *Microsoft* office, and other non free software!
I feel fine running BSD and Linux, if I wanted to
run propertary software I would use Windows.
In English yes, not in Swedish. I belive it is spelled Tor in Danish and Norvigian too, but I am not certain.
And it is pronounced like "t" and not like "th".
In Swedish it is Tor, Oden, Loke, Balder etc, in English its Loki, isn't it?
Tor is a common name in scandinavia, and a somewhat stupid but strong god.
yes, absolutely, in theory.
Well, if you buy a "brand" computer you will pay
microsoft tax, however you can buy many computers
without windows. This is not true for Mac; if you buy a Mac you *will* pay for OSX. Even if you could
by a mac without OS (I doubt it) you would pay for
the OS anyway cause Apple has a Monopoly on the hardware and much of the "hardware cost" go to software development.
not everyone that use windows, pays for it
Yes, however for running really old code, you can't
run the OS in 64 bit mode (286 specific code if I remember correctly)
Actually I belive the trading quotas for polution is based on the polution levels when the treaty was writen. That would give US *big* quotas, much bigger than EU for example, but i could be wrong.
Yeah, like The Hurd.
The problem with monolithic kernels
like OSX and Linux is that all the
kernel space driver has to be mounted
by root. THAT is the big problem.
When you can mount filesystems as a
normal user (like the Hurd), then
I feel that the OS is the right place.
You will have to have an OS that
supports user space filesytems though.
Try Hurd.
Translators do what you want.
You could for example mount an iso image
over ftp, and start looking at files on
the image, without downloading the image.
All with your usual commands.