What is the use of static function in C?

[Ingo Menger]

When people come here to ask "the experts" they don't expect them to
behave like self righteous pompous twats.

All right. But don't you see, that one and the same person (altough
under different gmail accounts) keeps asking questions here, one more
stupid and meaningless than the previous one? I'd not be surprised if
it turns out to be a robot.

Or maybe somebody needs some data for some psychological study.

 

[Chris Hills]

All right. But don't you see, that one and the same person (altough
under different gmail accounts) keeps asking questions here, one more
stupid and meaningless than the previous one? I'd not be surprised if
it turns out to be a robot.

Point taken.

 

[Malcolm]

Most computers on the planet are 8 bit micros with 256 RAM and 64K code
space..... At one time there were 3 or 4 in every PC.

Those aren't computers. A computer has backing store, which most embedded
microprocessors don't have. They still execute programs, but normally only
one
in their useful life.

 

[Chris Hills]

Those aren't computers. A computer has backing store,

Where did you get that odd definition from. Try suggesting that in
comp.arch.embedded

which most embedded
microprocessors don't have.

It depends.... many do. They use everything from memory cards through to
hard drives. Most have a "backing store" of flash memory. I have seen 8
bit MCU that have ha hard drive attached.

They still execute programs, but normally only
one
in their useful life.

Not at all. Many are upgradable on the fly.

Most smart cards (and phone sims) are 8051 and they get updated often
and have a full file system.

I think you are well out of touch with embedded computing.

 

[Malcolm]

I have a serious problem at work with programmers assuming unlimited
resources - about 2% of our overnight processing now consumes more
than 4GB of memory. If you've ever tried sourcing 16GB of memory for a
new Sun server, you'll know that this is an expensive mistake...

16 GB at 10 cents a megabyte, come to about 1600 dollars.
I would expect that amount of money to be available if I asked for it.

Of course you are right, temporarily it might be the situation that you
cannot just plug more memory in, and a program has to execute with the
resources it has got, not the resources you think it should have. But if Sun
cannot produce servers that can address 16GB of cheap memory, then they will
quickly be replaced by companies that can.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

16 GB at 10 cents a megabyte, come to about 1600 dollars.

hahahaha!!!!!
You have /clearly/ never tried to buy memory for a Sun.

I would expect that amount of money to be available if I asked for it.

Multiply by twenty, and you're in the right ballpark.

Of course you are right, temporarily it might be the situation that you
cannot just plug more memory in,

Indeed. Often this is plain impossible. Not many retail PC mobos
support more than 2GB, for instance. And then there's the OS to
consider...

But if Sun
cannot produce servers that can address 16GB of cheap memory, then they will
quickly be replaced by companies that can.

Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
4GB.

No cheating and using Osen not yet released, already defunct, or
requiring big iron.

 

[Espen Myrland]

Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
4GB.

Linux?

 

[Richard Tobin]

Off the top of your head, name a few OSen that can address more than
4GB.

[/QUOTE]

Linux?

All the main free unixes, I think, and MacOS X. Though I've heard
that MacOS X doesn't have 64-bit versions of its user-interface
libraries.

-- Richard

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Linux?

[/QUOTE]

Nope. Not unless you wander over into Linux64 territory, which is
still problematical.

All the main free unixes, I think,

Mostly have an upper limit of 4GB for any user process.

and MacOS X.

You're right about this one. Not much penetration into the real
computing world tho

 

[Randy Howard]

Mark McIntyre wrote

Nope. Not unless you wander over into Linux64 territory, which is
still problematical.

Strange comment, since I've been using it for years, and it
works like a champ, up to and including 64GB, 8 CPU hardware
configurations. It's been running without any troubles at all
on a much simpler 64-bit notebook for the last year or more
also.

You're right about this one. Not much penetration into the real
computing world tho

That's changing, and rightfully so. It's basically the best of
the UNIX variants today, including Linux, is 64-bit capable down
deep, but the GUI still runs 32-bit.

Also not mentioned, is Win64, which is barely functional,
particularly for peripheral drivers at this point.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Mark McIntyre wrote


Strange comment, since I've been using it for years,

Thats as may be, and indeed I have an install disk from a few years
back. However I'm currently unaware of anyone using it commercially to
any meaningful degree. It anyone has some good case studies I'm
interested.

That's changing, and rightfully so.

Once Mac stop supporting only proprietary chips, things will look up.
Right now they're competing in the space occupied by Solaris and the
other big Unix vendors running on proprietary h/w.

Also not mentioned, is Win64, which is barely functional,
particularly for peripheral drivers at this point.

As I said, no cheating and mentioning vaporware...

 

[Randy Howard]

Mark McIntyre wrote

Thats as may be, and indeed I have an install disk from a few years
back.

That should be easily rectified, since multiple 64-bit distros,
for a number of processor architectures of current vintage can
be downloaded for free.

However I'm currently unaware of anyone using it commercially to
any meaningful degree. It anyone has some good case studies I'm
interested.

I'm not in the business of writing case studies, but I assure it
is being used to good effect by a lot of major companies,
whether they write papers on it or not.

Once Mac stop supporting only proprietary chips, things will look up.

PPC is no more proprietary than Intel is. Both are available on
the open market. What you mean is, once they sell a motherboard
that looks sufficiently like a PC motherboard you'll be more
comfortable with it?

I used to think the same way, until I bought a mac, because I
wanted a box with a different byte order as an experiment.
Afterward, I figured out what all the shouting over OS X was
about and shifted gears completely.

Right now they're competing in the space occupied by Solaris and the
other big Unix vendors running on proprietary h/w.

Strange, all of those USB, firewire, PCI, PCI-X and PCI-express
slots don't look proprietary at all to me.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

As I said, no cheating and mentioning vaporware...

You may not like it, but Win64 is hardly "vaporware". I'm porting
stuff to it now; in fact, I'm posting between builds. I'm using this
particular Win64 machine remotely, over RDP, and it's been rock-solid.

Win64 is far more than "barely functional", in fact. At the VS 2005
kickoff, we had a demo with EDS running a big transaction-processing
app under our application server on Win64, on a 24-CPU (maybe a
32-CPU - I wasn't there, and I've read conflicting reports) Fujitsu
box. That's a real production-class application, running thousands
of transactions/minute.

Windows isn't my favorite OS, but it's quite capable. And that
includes Win64. (I'm sure "peripheral drivers" are important to many
users, but the people I talk to aren't having any problems with the
peripherals they use - which are mostly big SAN arrays.)

--
Michael Wojcik (e-mail address removed)

She felt increasingly (vision or nightmare?) that, though people are
important, the relations between them are not, and that in particular
too much fuss has been made over marriage; centuries of carnal
embracement, yet man is no nearer to understanding man. -- E M Forster

 

[Randy Howard]

Michael Wojcik wrote

Win64 is far more than "barely functional", in fact.

[snipped trade show example]

If, and only if, you are very careful to choose all the hardware
so that you have working drivers. In the enterprise space that
is expected. However, XP64 is shipping, a market segment in
which people connect all sorts of 3rd party devices, video
cards, disk controllers, mice, you name it. Most of them do not
work reliably under Win64 XP. In short, it is where Linux64 was
several years ago, or slightly worse.

Windows isn't my favorite OS, but it's quite capable.

Especially if it never connects to the internet. After that,
all bets are off.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

You may not like it, but Win64 is hardly "vaporware".

What gives you the idea I don't like it? As it happens, I'm running a
project to port a bunch of analytics to both Win64 and Linux64. I just
don't consider either of them "production" ready in anything like the
same way that Win32 or Linux are.

Windows isn't my favorite OS, but it's quite capable. And that
includes Win64.

Come now, even MS admit its not a finished product.

(I'm sure "peripheral drivers" are important to many
users, but the people I talk to aren't having any problems with the
peripherals they use - which are mostly big SAN arrays.)

Specialised usage is an exception of course. Myself I merely need
64-bit versions of Java, Boost, xerces, perl, python, and a bunch of
other likewise stuff...

 

[Michael Wojcik]

What gives you the idea I don't like it?

I didn't say you didn't like it.

As it happens, I'm running a
project to port a bunch of analytics to both Win64 and Linux64. I just
don't consider either of them "production" ready in anything like the
same way that Win32 or Linux are.

I see. Once again we have a case of Mark's Personal Terminology,
here for "vaporware". Alas, I remain unable to read your mind and
detect when you use a word in a sense other than its common one.

Come now, even MS admit its not a finished product.

Where did I claim it was "finished"? I don't believe I've ever
used "finished" software, for that matter.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Michael Wojcik wrote


Especially if it never connects to the internet. After that,
all bets are off.

Linux does not have a sterling record in this regard either.

Windows, over the course of its development, has had an egregious
number of remotely-exploitable security holes. And most of those
were due to poorly-designed, poorly-implemented, unnecessary features
on the one hand, and defaulting to insecure behavior on the other.
But it is getting better; and it has never been the sole offender.

Personally, I'm far from satisfied with the security of any OS I use,
or indeed of nearly any piece of software, excepting embedded systems
with no security exposures.

 

[Jordan Abel]

What gives you the idea I don't like it? As it happens, I'm running a
project to port a bunch of analytics to both Win64 and Linux64. I just
don't consider either of them "production" ready in anything like the
same way that Win32 or Linux are.


Come now, even MS admit its not a finished product.

[this is all way off-topic, but] "Vaporware" has connotations beyond
being 'not a finished product' - not the least of which being that it
never _will_ be finished. There is a business practice which Microsoft
has been accused of in the past which includes announcing a product
without intending to make a serious effort to finish it, with the intent
of squashing interest in a competing product. That is one of the
meanings of the term "Vaporware". Another, more neutral, meaning, lacks
the anticompetitive claims but still has the core meaning of being a
product which is never really going to make it to market, or there will
at least be quite a long time waiting for it. The wikipedia article is
quite informative: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware>

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I didn't say you didn't like it.

Perhaps its different wherever you live, but in the UK, "you may not
like it". unequivocally means "even though you don't like it". The
phrase is only ever used in the context of "no matter what you think,
you're wrong"

I see. Once again we have a case of Mark's Personal Terminology,
here for "vaporware".

*sigh*.

 

[Michael Wojcik]

Perhaps its different wherever you live, but in the UK, "you may not
like it". unequivocally means "even though you don't like it".

I am in the UK rather frequently - at least a couple of times a year,
for at least a week at a time. And most of my coworkers are British.
And contemporary British fiction is one of my academic fields. Yet I
have never noticed this quirk of dialect. How odd.

The
phrase is only ever used in the context of "no matter what you think,
you're wrong"

So when someone says, oh, "You should try Branson pickle, though you
may not like it", they mean my opinion of it will inevitably be
incorrect?

In my experience - and I admit I have conversed with only a small
fraction of the world's English speakers - the clause "you may not
like it" sometimes indicates the possibility that the addressee may
have an unfavorable impression of the antecedent of the latter
pronoun. But communication is a tricky thing, and perhaps in that
dialect where "vaporware" (here a term of art, meaning roughly
"product which has been announced but has not been shown to exist in
any substantial form") means "product which isn't quite finished",
that phrase is always the idiom you describe.