DOCSLIB.ORG

The C Language the C Language C History BCPL C History C History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The C Language the C Language C History BCPL C History C History The C Language C History Currently, the most Developed between 1969 and 1973 along The C Language commonly-used language for with Unix embedded systems Due mostly to Dennis Ritchie COMS W4995-02 ”High-level assembly” Designed for systems programming Prof. Stephen A. Edwards Very portable: compilers • Fall 2002 exist for virtually every Operating systems Columbia University processor • Utility programs Department of Computer Science Easy-to-understand • Compilers compilation • Filters Produces efficient code Fairly concise Evolved from B, which evolved from BCPL BCPL C History C History Martin Richards, Cambridge, 1967 Original machine (DEC Many language features designed to reduce memory PDP-11) was very small: Typeless • Forward declarations required for everything • Everything a machine word (n-bit integer) 24K bytes of memory, 12K • Designed to work in one pass: must know everything used for operating system • Pointers (addresses) and integers identical • Written when computers No function nesting Memory: undifferentiated array of words were big, capital equipment PDP-11 was byte-addressed Natural model for word-addressed machines Group would get one, • Now standard Local variables depend on frame-pointer-relative develop new language, OS addressing: no dynamically-sized automatic objects • Meant BCPL’s word-based model was insufficient Strings awkward: Routines expand and pack bytes to/from word arrays Euclid’s Algorithm in C Euclid’s Algorithm in C Euclid on the PDP-11 .globl gcd GPRs: r0–r7 int gcd(int m, int n ) “New syle” function int gcd(int m, int n ) Automatic variable .text r7=PC, r6=SP, r5=FP { declaration lists { Allocated on stack gcd: int r; number and type of int r; when function jsr r5, rsave Save SP in FP arguments. while ((r = m % n) != 0) { while ((r = m % n) != 0) { entered, released L2: mov 4(r5), r1 r1 = n Originally only on return sxt r0 sign extend m = n; listed return type. m = n; div 6(r5), r0 r0, r1 = m ÷ n Parameters & n = r; Generated code did n = r; mov r1, -10(r5) r = r1 (m % n) automatic variables not care how many jeq L3 if r == 0 goto L3 } } accessed via frame arguments were mov 6(r5), 4(r5) m = n return n; return n; pointer actually passed, mov -10(r5), 6(r5) n = r } } Ignored and everything was n Other temporaries jbr L2 a word. m also stacked L3: mov 6(r5), r0 r0 = n FP ! PC jbr L1 Arguments are non-optimizing compiler r ! SP L1: jmp rretrn return r0 (n) call-by-value Euclid on the PDP-11 Pieces of C C Types .globl gcd Very natural Types and Variables Basic types: char, int, float, and double .text mapping from • Definitions of data in memory gcd: C into PDP-11 Meant to match the processor’s native types jsr r5, rsave instructions. L2: mov 4(r5), r1 Expressions • Natural translation into assembly Complex addressing modes sxt r0 • Arithmetic, logical, and assignment operators in an div 6(r5), r0 make frame-pointer-relative • Fundamentally nonportable: a function of processor infix notation mov r1, -10(r5) accesses easy. architecture jeq L3 mov 6(r5), 4(r5) Another idiosyncrasy: Statements registers were mov -10(r5), 6(r5) • Sequences of conditional, iteration, and branching jbr L2 memory-mapped, so taking L3: mov 6(r5), r0 address of a variable in a instructions jbr L1 register is straightforward. L1: jmp rretrn Functions • Groups of statements invoked recursively Declarators Struct bit-fields Code generated by bit fields # unsigned int b1 = flags.b Declaration: string of specifiers followed by a declarator Aggressively packs data into memory movb flags, %al struct { struct { shrb 5, %al basic type unsigned int a : 5; movzbl %al, %eax unsigned int baud : 5; z}|{ unsigned int b : 2; andl 3, %eax static unsigned int (*f[10])(int, char*)[10]; | {z } | {z } unsigned int div2 : 1; unsigned int c : 3; movl %eax, -4(%ebp) specifiers declarator unsigned int use_external_clock : 1; } flags; } flags; # flags.c = c; void foo(int c) { movl flags, %eax Declarator’s notation matches that of an expression: use it Compiler will pack these fields into words. unsigned int b1 = movl 8(%ebp), %edx to return the basic type. flags.b; andl 7, %edx Implementation-dependent packing, ordering, etc. Largely regarded as the worst syntactic aspect of C: both flags.c = c; sall 7, %edx } andl -897, %eax pre- (pointers) and postfix operators (arrays, functions). Usually not very efficient: requires masking, shifting, and read-modify-write operations. orl %edx, %eax movl %eax, flags C Unions Layout of Records and Unions Layout of Records and Unions Like structs, but only stores the most-recently-written Modern processors have byte-addressable memory. Modern memory systems read data in 32-, 64-, or 128-bit field. 0 chunks: union { 1 3 2 1 0 int ival; 2 7 6 5 4 float fval; 11 10 9 8 char *sval; 3 } u; 4 Reading an aligned 32-bit value is fast: a single operation. Useful for arrays of dissimilar objects Many data types (integers, addresses, floating-point 3 2 1 0 numbers) are wider than a byte. Potentially very dangerous: not type-safe 7 6 5 4 16-bit integer: 1 0 Good example of C’s philosophy: Provide powerful 11 10 9 8 mechanisms that can be abused 32-bit integer: 3 2 1 0 Layout of Records and Unions Layout of Records and Unions C Storage Classes /* fixed address: visible to other files */ Slower to read an unaligned value: two reads plus shift. Most languages “pad” the layout of records to ensure int global static; alignment restrictions. /* fixed address: only visible within file */ 3 2 1 0 static int file static; struct padded { 7 6 5 4 /* parameters always stacked */ int x; /* 4 bytes */ int foo(int auto param) 11 10 9 8 { char z; /* 1 byte */ /* fixed address: only visible to function */ static int func static; short y; /* 2 bytes */ 6 5 4 3 /* stacked: only visible to function */ char w; /* 1 byte */ int auto i, auto a[10]; }; /* array explicitly allocated on heap (pointer stacked) */ double *auto d = SPARC prohibits unaligned accesses. x x x x malloc(sizeof(double)*5); MIPS has special unaligned load/store instructions. y y z = Added padding /* return value passed in register or stack */ return auto i; x86, 68k run more slowly with unaligned accesses. w } malloc() and free() malloc() and free() malloc() and free() Library routines for managing the heap More flexible than (stacked) automatic variables Memory usage errors so pervasive, entire successful int *a; More costly in time and space company (Pure Software) founded to sell tool to track a = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * k); them down malloc() and free() use non-constant-time algorithms a[5] = 3; Purify tool inserts code that verifies each memory access free(a); Two-word overhead for each allocated block: • Pointer to next empty block Reports accesses of uninitialized memory, unallocated memory, etc. Allocate and free arbitrary-sized chunks of memory in any • Size of this block order Publicly-available Electric Fence tool does something Common source of errors: similar Using uninitialized memory Using freed memory Not allocating enough Indexing past block Neglecting to free disused blocks (memory leaks) malloc() and free() Dynamic Storage Allocation Dynamic Storage Allocation #include <stdlib.h> Rules: struct point {int x, y; }; int play with points(int n) Each allocated block contiguous (no holes) { # free() struct point *points; Blocks stay fixed once allocated points = malloc(n*sizeof(struct point)); malloc() int i; # malloc( ) for ( i = 0 ; i < n ; i++ ) { Find an area large enough for requested block points[i].x = random(); points[i].y = random(); Mark memory as allocated } free() /* do something with the array */ Mark the block as unallocated free(points); } Simple Dynamic Storage Allocation Dynamic Storage Allocation Simple Dynamic Storage Allocation Maintaining information about free memory Simplest: Linked list S N S S N S S N S S N The algorithm for locating a suitable block Simplest: First-fit The algorithm for freeing an allocated block # free() # malloc( ) Simplest: Coalesce adjacent free blocks S S N S S N S S N Dynamic Storage Allocation malloc() and free() variants Fragmentation Many, many other approaches. ANSI does not define implementation of malloc()/free(). malloc( ) seven times give Other “fit” algorithms Memory-intensive programs may use alternatives: Segregation of objects by size Memory pools: Differently-managed heap areas free() four times gives More clever data structures Stack-based pool: only free whole pool at once Nice for build-once data structures Single-size-object pool: malloc( ) ? Fit, allocation, etc. much faster Need more memory; can’t use fragmented memory. Good for object-oriented programs On unix, implemented on top of sbrk() system call (requests additional memory from OS). Fragmentation and Handles Automatic Garbage Collection Automatic Garbage Collection Standard CS solution: Add another layer of indirection. Remove the need for explicit deallocation. Challenges: Always reference memory through “handles.” System periodically identifies reachable memory and How do you identify all reachable memory? frees unreachable memory. (Start from program variables, walk all data structures.) Reference counting one approach. Circular structures defy reference counting: ha hb hc Mark-and-sweep another: cures fragmentation. A B *a *b *c # compact Used in Java, functional languages, etc. The original Neither is reachable, yet both have non-zero reference Macintosh did counts. ha hb hc this to save memory. Garbage collectors often conservative: don’t try to collect *a *b *c everything, just that which is definitely garbage. Arrays Lazy Logical Operators The Switch Statment switch (expr) { tmp = expr; Array: sequence of identical objects in memory ”Short circuit” tests save time if (tmp == 1) goto L1; int a[10]; means space for ten integers if ( a == 3 && b == 4 && c == 5 ) { ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Latest Results from the Procedure Calling Test, Ackermann's Function
    Latest results from the procedure calling test, Ackermann’s function B A WICHMANN National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex Division of Information Technology and Computing March 1982 Abstract Ackermann’s function has been used to measure the procedure calling over- head in languages which support recursion. Two papers have been written on this which are reproduced1 in this report. Results from further measurements are in- cluded in this report together with comments on the data obtained and codings of the test in Ada and Basic. 1 INTRODUCTION In spite of the two publications on the use of Ackermann’s Function [1, 2] as a mea- sure of the procedure-calling efficiency of programming languages, there is still some interest in the topic. It is an easy test to perform and the large number of results ob- tained means that an implementation can be compared with many other systems. The purpose of this report is to provide a listing of all the results obtained to date and to show their relationship. Few modern languages do not provide recursion and hence the test is appropriate for measuring the overheads of procedure calls in most cases. Ackermann’s function is a small recursive function listed on page 2 of [1] in Al- gol 60. Although of no particular interest in itself, the function does perform other operations common to much systems programming (testing for zero, incrementing and decrementing integers). The function has two parameters M and N, the test being for (3, N) with N in the range 1 to 6. Like all tests, the interpretation of the results is not without difficulty.
    [Show full text]
  • ALGOL 60 Programming on the Decsystem 10.Pdf
    La Trobe University DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS ALGOL 60 Programming on the DECSystem 10 David Woodhouse Revised, August 1975 MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA ALGOL 60 Programming on the DECSystem 10 David Woodhouse Revised, August 1975 CE) David Woodhouse National Library of Australia card number and ISBN. ISBN 0 85816 066 8 INTRODUCTION This text is intended as a complete primer on ALGOL 60 programming. It refers specifically to Version 4 of the DECSystem 10 implementation. However, it avoids idiosyncracies as far as possible, and so should be useful in learning the language on other machines. The few features in the DEC ALGOL manual which are not mentioned here should not be needed until the student is sufficiently advanced to be using this text for reference only. Exercises at the end of each chapter illustrate the concepts introduced therein, and full solutions are given. I should like to thank Mrs. K. Martin and Mrs. M. Wallis for their patient and careful typing. D. Woodhouse, February, 1975. CONTENTS Chapter 1 : High-level languages 1 Chapter 2: Languagt! struct.ure c.f ALGOL 6n 3 Chapter 3: Statemp.nts: the se'1tences {'\f the language 11 Chapter 4: 3tandard functions 19 Chapter 5: Input an~ Outp~t 21 Chapter 6: l>rray~ 31 Chapter 7 : For ane! ~hil~ statements 34 Chapter 8: Blocks anr! ',: ock sc rll,~ turr. 38 Chapter 9: PrOCe(:l1-:-~S 42 Chapter 10: Strin2 vp·jaLlps 60 Chapter 11: Own v~rj;lI'.i..es clOd s~itc.hef, 64 Chapter 12: Running ~nd ,;ebllggi"1g 67 Bibliography 70 Solutions to Exercises 71 Appendix 1 : Backus NOlUlaj F\:q'm 86 Appendix 2 : ALGuL-like languages 88 Appenclix 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of C++: 1979− 1991
    A History of C++: 1979−1991 Bjarne Stroustrup AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 ABSTRACT This paper outlines the history of the C++ programming language. The emphasis is on the ideas, constraints, and people that shaped the language, rather than the minutiae of language features. Key design decisions relating to language features are discussed, but the focus is on the overall design goals and practical constraints. The evolution of C++ is traced from C with Classes to the current ANSI and ISO standards work and the explosion of use, interest, commercial activity, compilers, tools, environments, and libraries. 1 Introduction C++ was designed to provide Simula’s facilities for program organization together with C’s effi- ciency and flexibility for systems programming. It was intended to deliver that to real projects within half a year of the idea. It succeeded. At the time, I realized neither the modesty nor the preposterousness of that goal. The goal was modest in that it did not involve innovation, and preposterous in both its time scale and its Draco- nian demands on efficiency and flexibility. While a modest amount of innovation did emerge over the years, efficiency and flexibility have been maintained without compromise. While the goals for C++ have been refined, elaborated, and made more explicit over the years, C++ as used today directly reflects its original aims. This paper is organized in roughly chronological order: §2 C with Classes: 1979– 1983. This section describes the fundamental design decisions for C++ as they were made for C++’s immediate predecessor. §3 From C with Classes to C++: 1982– 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • The BCPL Cintsys and Cintpos User Guide by Martin Richards [email protected]
    The BCPL Cintsys and Cintpos User Guide by Martin Richards [email protected] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/mr10/ Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge Revision date: Thu 19 Aug 16:16:54 BST 2021 Abstract BCPL is a simple systems programming language with a small fast compiler which is easily ported to new machines. The language was first implemented in 1967 and has been in continuous use since then. It is a typeless and provides machine independent pointer arithmetic allowing a simple way to represent vectors and structures. BCPL functions are recursive and variadic but, like C, do not allow dynamic free variables, and so can be represented by just their entry addresses. There is no built-in garbage collector and all input-output is done using library calls. This document describes both the single threaded BCPL Cintcode System (called Cintsys) and the Cintcode version of the Tripos portable operating system (called Cintpos). It gives a definition of the standard BCPL language including the recently added features such as floating point expressions and constructs involving operators such as <> and op:=. This manual describes an extended version of BCPL that include some of the features of MCPL, mainly concerning the pattern matching used in function definitions. This version can be compiled using the mbcpl command. This manual also describes the standard library and running environment. The native code version of the system based on Sial and the Cintpos portable operating system are also described. Installation instructions are included. Since May 2013, the standard BCPL distribution supports both 32 and 64 bit Cintcode versions.
    [Show full text]
  • The BCPL Reference Manual
    MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PROJECT MAC Memorandum-M-352 July 21, 1967 To: Project MAC Participants From: Martin Richards Subject: The BCPL Reference Manual ABSTRACT BCPL is a simple recursive programming language designed for compiler writing and system programming: it was derived from true CPL (Combined Programming Language) by removing those features of the full language which make compilation difficult namely, the type and mode matching rules and the variety of definition structures with their associated scope rules. 0.0 Index 1.0 Introduction 2.0 BCPL Syntax 2.1 Hardware Syntax 2.1:1 BCPL Canonical Symbols 2.1.2 Hardware Conventions and Preprocessor Rules 2.2 Canonical Syntax 3.0 Data Items 3.1 Rvalues, Lvalues and Data Items 3.2 Types 4.0 Primary Expressions 4.1 Names 4.2 String Constants 4.3 Numerical Constants 4.4 True and False 4.5 Bracketted Expressions 4.6 Result Blocks 4.7 Vector Applications 4.8 Function Applications 4.9 Lv Expressions 4.10 Rv Expressions 5.0 Compound Expressions 5.1 Arithmetic Expressions 5.2 Relational Expressions 5.3 Shift Expressions 5.4 Logical Expressions 5.5 Conditional Expressions 6.0 Commands 6.1 Assignment Commands 6.2 Simple Assignment Commands 6.3 Routine Commands 6.4 Labelled Commands 6.5 Goto Commands 6.6 If Commands 6.7 Unless Commands 6.8 While Commands 6.9 Until Commands 6.10 Test Commands 6.11 Repeated Commands 6.12 For Commands 6.13 Break Commands 6.14 Finish Commands 6.15 Return Commands 6.16 Resultis Commands 6.17 Switchon Commands 6.18 Blocks 7.0 Definitions 7.1 Scope Rules 7.2 Space Allocation and Extent of Data Items 7.3 Global Declarations 7.4 Manifest Declarations 7.5 Simple Definitions 7.6 Vector Definitions 7.7 Function Definitions 7.8 Routine Definitions 7.9 Simultaneous Definitions 8.0 Example Program 1.0 Introduction 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of the C Languageߤ
    The Development of the C Languageߤ Dennis M. Ritchie Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA [email protected] ABSTRACT The C programming language was devised in the early 1970s as a system implementation language for the nascent Unix operating system. Derived from the typeless language BCPL, it evolved a type structure; created on a tiny machine as a tool to improve a meager programming environment, it has become one of the dominant languages of today. This paper studies its evolution. Introduction This paper is about the development of the C programming language, the influences on it, and the conditions under which it was created. For the sake of brevity, I omit full descriptions of C itself, its parent B [Johnson 73] and its grandparent BCPL [Richards 79], and instead concentrate on characteristic elements of each language and how they evolved. C came into being in the years 1969-1973, in parallel with the early development of the Unix operating system; the most creative period occurred during 1972. Another spate of changes peaked between 1977 and 1979, when portability of the Unix system was being demonstrated. In the middle of this second period, the first widely available description of the language appeared: The C Programming Language, often called the ‘white book’ or ‘K&R’ [Kernighan 78]. Finally, in the middle 1980s, the language was officially standardized by the ANSI X3J11 committee, which made further changes. Until the early 1980s, although compilers existed for a variety of machine architectures and operating systems, the language was almost exclusively associated with Unix; more recently, its use has spread much more widely, and today it is among the lan- guages most commonly used throughout the computer industry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Algol Family And
    The Algol family and SML INF 3040 INF - Volker Stolz 2020 [email protected] Department of Informatics – University of Oslo Initially by Gerardo Schneider. Based on John C. Mitchell’s slides (Stanford U.) 18.09.20 IN3040 – ML 1 SML lectures ! 18.09: The Algol Family and SML (Mitchell’s chap. 5) ! 25.09: More on ML & Types (chap. 5 and 6) IN3040 - ! 16.10: More on Types, Type Inference and 2020 Polymorphism (chap. 6) ! Control in sequential languages, Exceptions and Continuations (chap. 8) ! Prolog I / Prolog II 18.09.20 IN3040 – ML 1 Outline (Mitchell, Chapter 5) ! Brief overview of Algol-like programming languages Algol 60/Algol 68 • Pascal/Modula IN3040 • C - ! Basic SML 2020 ! Noteworthy this year: • You may use Haskell instead of SML in exercises and the exam! (*) • I will prepare short video snippets showing the differences. • (*) Terms and conditions apply! Don’t use Haskell-”power features”, we’ll only admit the Haskell-equivalents of SML-constructs (ie., no “do”-notation, language extensions, infinite data structure) 18.09.20 IN3040 – ML 1 A (partial) Language Sequence Lisp (McCarthy, MIT) Algol 60 late 50s Algol 68 IN3040 Simula - Pascal 2020 ML Modula Many other languages in the “family”: Algol 58, Algol W, Euclid, Ada, Simula 67, BCPL, Modula-2, Oberon, Modula-3 (DEC), Delphi, … 18.09.20 IN3040 – ML 1 Algol 60 ! Designed: 1958-1963 (J. Backus, J. McCarthy, A. Perlis,…) ! General purpose language. Features: • Simple imperative language + functions • Successful syntax, used by many successors IN3040 – Statement oriented - – begin … end blocks (like C { … } ) (local variables) 2020 – if … then … else • BNF (Backus Normal Form) – Became the standard for describing syntax • ALGOL became a standard language to describe algorithms.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Algol 68 Genie
    LEARNING ALGOL 68 GENIE Algol 68 Genie 2.0.0 (September 2010) Edited by Marcel van der Veer Learning Algol 68 Genie copyright c Marcel van der Veer, 2008-2010. Algol 68 Genie copyright c Marcel van der Veer, 2001-2010. Learning Algol 68 Genie is a compilation of separate and independent documents or works, consisting of the following parts: I. Informal introduction to Algol 68, II. Programming with Algol 68 Genie, III. Example a68g programs, IV. Algol 68 Revised Report, V. Appendices Part I, II, III and V are distributed under the conditions of the GNU Free Documenta- tion License: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and / or modify the text under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. See http://www.gnu.org. Part IV is a translation of the Algol 68 Revised Report into LATEX and is therefore subject to IFIP’s condition contained in that Report: Reproduction of the Report, for any purpose, but only of the whole text, is explicitly permitted without formality. Chapter 20, "Specification of partial parametrization proposal", is not a part of the Algol 68 Revised Report, and is distributed with kind permission of the author of this proposal, C.H. Lindsey. IBM is a trademark of IBM corporation. Linux is a trademark registered to Linus Torvalds. Mac OS X is a trademark of Apple Computer.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Design Is LEGO Design and Library Design
    Language Design is LEGO Design and Library Design Stephen A. Edwards Columbia University Forum on Specification & Design Languages Southampton, United Kingdom, September 3, 2019 User-defined functions and pointers in imperative languages Language design choices are often heavily influenced by processor architectures. Understand the processor to understand the language Best to understand how to compile a feature before adding it to the language 1954: The IBM 704 Electronic Data-Processing Machine 36-bit Integer & Floating-point ALU 36-bit instructions Core: 4–32K words Incubated FORTRAN and LISP “Mass Produced”: [IBM 704 Manual of Operation, 1955] IBM sold 125 @ $2M ea. 1954: IBM 704 Processor Architecture 3 15-bit Index Registers 38-bit Accumulator 36-bit M-Q Register 15-bit Program Counter 1954: Calling a Subroutine on the IBM 704 TSX SINX, C Branch to SINX, remember PC in index register C TRA 2, C Return to 2 words past address in index register C 1954: FORTRAN 1954: FORTRAN — J. W. Backus, H. Herrick, and I. Ziller. Specifications for the the IBM Mathematical FORmula TRANslating System. IBM, November 10, 1954. 1957: FORTRAN I on the IBM 705 1, 2, 3D arrays Arithmetic expressions Integer and floating-point Loops and conditionals User-defined functions: expressions only [Programmer’s Primer for FORTRAN Automatic Coding System for the IBM 704, 1957] 1957: FORTRAN I User-Defined Functions Free variables are globals No recursion; backward references only No arrays “Activation Records” allocated statically 1957: EQUIVALENCE Statement for Sharing
    [Show full text]
  • DISCLAIMER This Document Was Prepared As an Account of Work
    DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or the Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or the Regents of the University of California. : •.. :. March 1980 Fortran Newsletter Volmte 6, NlIDber 1, Page 1 =FOR-WORD=> X3J3 To Cmsider Real-Time arxl GraIitics Applications As Second arxl 'lhird Exanples of Applicatioo ~ules X3J3, the Technical Committee for Fortran under ANSI (American National Standards Institute) has maintained oontinuing liaison with U.S. and international Committees interested in Real-Time Applica­ tions of Fortran. At the most recent meeting of X3J3 (January 1980), an ad hoc Task Group was formed as a precursor to a formal Task Group (X3J3.2) on Control of Multi-Tasking-SYstems. This group will coordinate its \o,Ork closely with that of the Instrument Society of America (ISA), which has been work­ ing on standards in the process-control area, and with the work of the European Workshop on Industrial Control Systems (EWICS).
    [Show full text]
  • The C Language the C Language C History BCPL C History C History
    The C Language The C Language Currently, the most commonly-used language for embedded systems “High-level assembly” Prof. Stephen A. Edwards Very portable: compilers exist for virtually every processor Easy-to-understand compilation Produces efficient code Fairly concise Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved C History BCPL Developed between 1969 and 1973 along with Unix Designed by Martin Richards (Cambridge) in 1967 Due mostly to Dennis Ritchie Typeless Designed for systems programming • Everything an n-bit integer (a machine word) • Pointers (addresses) and integers identical • Operating systems • Utility programs Memory is an undifferentiated array of words • Compilers Natural model for word-addressed machines • Filters Local variables depend on frame-pointer-relative Evolved from B, which evolved from BCPL addressing: dynamically-sized automatic objects not permitted Strings awkward • Routines expand and pack bytes to/from word arrays Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved Copyright © 2001 Stephen A. Edwards All rights reserved C History C History Original machine (DEC PDP-11) Many language features designed to reduce memory was very small • Forward declarations required for everything • 24K bytes of memory, 12K used • Designed to work in one pass: must know everything for operating system • No function nesting Written when computers were big, capital equipment PDP-11 was byte-addressed • Group would get one, develop new language, OS • Now standard
    [Show full text]
  • September Is Library Card Sign-Up Month!
    OCTOBER 2021 Fiscal Year July 2020 - June 2021 Report to the Community Leading the Library through a pandemic which has changed the world is not something I trained to do. But remaining committed to our community, we tackled it as an opportunity to reset by evaluating services, programs, and facilities to determine what was working, needed to be added, changed, updated or ended. Summary: Ways the Library adapted to the changing needs of our community during the Pandemic: • Fines were temporarily eliminated, following the eviction moratorium. (expired September 1, 2021) • Virtual Programming allows the Library to offer a wide range of informative, cultural and educational opportunities to learners of all ages and backgrounds from the comfort of home. (summer 2020) • Book Bundles offers a personalized reading list for children, teens, and their families. (summer 2020) • Homeschool Collections provide materials to supplement the homeschool curriculum. (August 2020) • Student Digital Access (SDA) cards are available to every middle and high school student in Boone County Schools. The card gives students access to the Library’s digital resources without fines.(August 2020) • 1,000 Books Before Kindergarten prepares children for starting school with an achievable goal. The child earns milestone badges, a certificate and a picture with Tales the Library Dragon. (January 2021) • Wide-Area Mesh Network delivers Wi-Fi to households in the community that do not have an internet connection. Wi-Fi usage increased by 82% through this partnership with the City of Florence. (February 2021) Circulation: Physical materials increased by 9% over last fiscal year. eMaterials increased by 261%. We are yet to determine if the increase in eMaterial usage is permanent or temporary due to the pandemic.
    [Show full text]