That program that produces factorials up to 100 was done under 10 lines of C code on a machine that is running Linux with a 32 bit processor.Originally Posted by claudiu
That program that produces factorials up to 100 was done under 10 lines of C code on a machine that is running Linux with a 32 bit processor.
I am sure it was. I am also certain it wasn't holding those values in a variable of type LONG.
I am also quite confident you stumbled upon it snooping through 'your co-worker's email'.
I was able to produce numbers for large values. All you seem to be capable of producing is a lot of hot air. Now shut it and try to learn something for once.
Last edited by Overworked_PhD; 04-20-2010 at 06:49 PM.
No, I didn't get it from my co-workers email you dimwit. Try again.
Yes, we all know you are the most capable C programmer here. Now off you go, treat yourself to some milk and cookies or something.
No. But I know than I'm more capable than you.
Prove it. Don't post your output. Post your ten lines.You're an idiot.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Uh.... My IQ drops 10 points every time I read one of you responses. Actually, I think my IQ drops 20 points when I read your vain attempt at C code. I guess I would be really surprised if you held a job beyond IT tech support. But whatever. I don't know you in real life.
Last edited by Overworked_PhD; 04-20-2010 at 07:01 PM.
So in other words: "I'm a troll, please ban me, because all I'm going to do is say I can do everything under the sun, but when someone calls me on it, I'm going to act elitist and not actually do what I say I can do."
Great, glad to see you go MisterC. Again.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Oh noes!!! Your IQ dropped to negative dude!
You're missing the point. We're not talking about results that you MIGHT receive. Nor are we talking about the results that you DID receive.
We're talking about what ANYONE with a standard C compiler, can expect to work, for large integral values.
That upper limit is included in limits.h, and is generally defined as ULONG_MAX, or MAX_ULONG, or a similar name. If you have long long's, then look for that limit's definition, of course.
Awhile back, I worked with a poster to find the highest range of several types of numbers, and all the integral types larger than 8 bits, (char's and shorts on my system), could be run up above their limits as listed in the header. In some cases, by quite a bit. But that doesn't mean they're safe to use, on other compilers which are set to that same C standard.
If you go beyond the limits set by the standard, (which will almost always be quite conservative), you can not defend that decision, to a customer, to a court, or anyone else. If it works for you, fine, but that is a long way from being able to say "it's ANSI/standard C".
Personally, I think it's fun to go exploring those unexplored niche's in C, once in awhile, as long as we're clear that it is outside the limits of standard C.
Nah, he's a troll.I don't care what "32 bit PC" he says he has, he's not getting 158-digit numbers using any single standard unit. He's not even getting remotely close to that with 128-bit numbers. And that IS what he started going on about--storing that value in a 32 bit data type.We're talking about what ANYONE with a standard C compiler, can expect to work, for large integral values.
That upper limit is included in limits.h, and is generally defined as ULONG_MAX, or MAX_ULONG, or a similar name. If you have long long's, then look for that limit's definition, of course.
Awhile back, I worked with a poster to find the highest range of several types of numbers, and all the integral types larger than 8 bits, (char's and shorts on my system), could be run up above their limits as listed in the header. In some cases, by quite a bit. But that doesn't mean they're safe to use, on other compilers which are set to that same C standard.
Like I said, he needs to put up (post his "10 lines of C"), or shut up. Looks like he opted for the latter.
Quzah.
Last edited by quzah; 04-20-2010 at 07:20 PM.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the code would bork if the person ran this code on a Windows 3.1 with a 16 bit processor.
Adak, can I email you the code? I still think that it will compile and run correctly on any machine that has a standard C compiler. That is, I believe it is fully conforming code. However, getting a second opinion from someone that knows that they are doing doesn't hurt. I'll also have to probably include some notes because I don't think my line of reasoning is that obvious.
Last edited by Overworked_PhD; 04-20-2010 at 09:11 PM.
Overworked_PhD is an idiot
Thank you, anon. You sure know how to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away.
