Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

cygwin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#61

Post by ww520 »

tptacek wrote: post #48
boredguy8 wrote: post #22

Best part is in the follow-up discussion: > Do you actually realise that not all computer languages can > be implemented with a model of one stack? > Do you actually realize that there are far better ways to implement stacks for interpreters than dinking with esp? Ways that actually have a chance of working? I suggest you investigate those alternatives instead of trying to do something that cannot work, and then gett…

Strong disagree. Korn's response is at least funny. The rest of the responses are petulant, somewhat ill-informed, and orthodoxical. The argument over whether C does or doesn't have a runtime is particularly tedious. You get the impression that these people would all be very, very upset at the Detours paper, except that Detours works so well they'd know a priori they'd lose the argumet. The original commenter --- des…

Why don't you show us a working version of the code instead of spewing endless argument?

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#62

Post by tptacek »

ww520 wrote: post #60
tptacek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every technical detail you try to provide makes it seem less likely you've ever implemented any of these things. People targeting Cygwin aren't writing for ARM. They're by and large trying to port Unix code to Win32. Meanwhile: what on earth is your point? He wants to build a language runtime on top of the native stack. You propose that he should find an arch-neutral way to do that? That's silly. This post is from 20…

He claimed his code work on Linux but didn't work when he ported to Cygwin. He's writing a Scheme interpreter which would aim for portability one assumes. Where did he say he's doing a non-portable exclusively Cygwin implementation? Stop putting your words into his mouth to make your argument. I specifically wrote the return address of main() was messed up in his code and that was what not working. Please point out w…

There is no "ESS" register on x86. You've confused the stack segment selector, which is an addressing format quirk (and which virtually never changes), with the register file. Please, stop digging.

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#63

Post by tptacek »

ww520 wrote: post #61
tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong disagree. Korn's response is at least funny. The rest of the responses are petulant, somewhat ill-informed, and orthodoxical. The argument over whether C does or doesn't have a runtime is particularly tedious. You get the impression that these people would all be very, very upset at the Detours paper, except that Detours works so well they'd know a priori they'd lose the argumet. The original commenter --- des…

Why don't you show us a working version of the code instead of spewing endless argument?

Because, as you've demonstrated amply downthread, the people making the most noise about how incompetent the original poster was for asking this question about Cygwin are the ones least qualified to have an opinion about this stuff, and are actually making Dave Korn (who was at least funny and who clearly does know what he's talking about) look worse.

But if you know how to use The Google, you can actually find code of mine that does this. I doubt very highly you can say the same thing.

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#64

Post by ww520 »

tptacek wrote: post #62
ww520 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed his code work on Linux but didn't work when he ported to Cygwin. He's writing a Scheme interpreter which would aim for portability one assumes. Where did he say he's doing a non-portable exclusively Cygwin implementation? Stop putting your words into his mouth to make your argument. I specifically wrote the return address of main() was messed up in his code and that was what not working. Please point out w…

There is no "ESS" register on x86. You've confused the stack segment selector, which is an addressing format quirk (and which virtually never changes), with the register file. Please, stop digging.

Read item 1 under 2.3.3 Stack Implementation in the Intel 80386 Reference Programmer's Manual. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2006/readings/i386/s02_03.ht...

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#65

Post by ww520 »

tptacek wrote: post #63
ww520 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you show us a working version of the code instead of spewing endless argument?

Because, as you've demonstrated amply downthread, the people making the most noise about how incompetent the original poster was for asking this question about Cygwin are the ones least qualified to have an opinion about this stuff, and are actually making Dave Korn (who was at least funny and who clearly does know what he's talking about) look worse. But if you know how to use The Google, you can actually find code…

Really I don't know you before this thread. I did what you asked and googled "thomas ptacek" and here are some of the result on the first page.

I'd Like Thomas Ptacek To Apologize Please http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-12.html

Welcome to Thomas J Ptacek Furniture http://www.thomasjptacek.com/

Security Idiot: Thomas Ptacek: Too Quick By Far! http://www.securityidiot.com/2008/07/thomas-ptacek-too-quick...

Are those yours?

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#66

Post by tptacek »

ww520 wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "ESS" register on x86. You've confused the stack segment selector, which is an addressing format quirk (and which virtually never changes), with the register file. Please, stop digging.

Read item 1 under 2.3.3 Stack Implementation in the Intel 80386 Reference Programmer's Manual. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2006/readings/i386/s02_03.ht...

The stack segment descriptor virtually never changes in userland protected mode code. You're not "asking for trouble" by not fucking with it. It's also not simply a pointer, unlike EBP with frame pointers. And it's called SS, not "ESS", and it's implied in stack operations.

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#67

Post by tptacek »

ww520 wrote: post #65
tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, as you've demonstrated amply downthread, the people making the most noise about how incompetent the original poster was for asking this question about Cygwin are the ones least qualified to have an opinion about this stuff, and are actually making Dave Korn (who was at least funny and who clearly does know what he's talking about) look worse. But if you know how to use The Google, you can actually find code…

Really I don't know you before this thread. I did what you asked and googled "thomas ptacek" and here are some of the result on the first page. I'd Like Thomas Ptacek To Apologize Please http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-12.html Welcome to Thomas J Ptacek Furniture http://www.thomasjptacek.com/ Security Idiot: Thomas Ptacek: Too Quick By Far! http://www.securityidiot.com/2008/07/thomas-ptacek-too-quick... Are those…

I don't sell furniture, and, keep looking.

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#68

Post by astrange »

Confusion wrote: post #51
edge17 wrote: post #29

Is that the same Dave Korn that did Korn Shell?

In case you haven't gathered from other responses in this thread or are only reading this in your 'threads' view: yes.

Er, no he isn't.

(The older David Korn actually wrote a sort-of-competitor to Cygwin, called UWIN.)

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#69

Post by apower »

ww520 wrote: post #65
tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, as you've demonstrated amply downthread, the people making the most noise about how incompetent the original poster was for asking this question about Cygwin are the ones least qualified to have an opinion about this stuff, and are actually making Dave Korn (who was at least funny and who clearly does know what he's talking about) look worse. But if you know how to use The Google, you can actually find code…

Really I don't know you before this thread. I did what you asked and googled "thomas ptacek" and here are some of the result on the first page. I'd Like Thomas Ptacek To Apologize Please http://www.zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-12.html Welcome to Thomas J Ptacek Furniture http://www.thomasjptacek.com/ Security Idiot: Thomas Ptacek: Too Quick By Far! http://www.securityidiot.com/2008/07/thomas-ptacek-too-quick... Are those…

This is hilarious.

Re: Your code should be taken out back, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned

#70

Post by Confusion »

astrange wrote: post #68
Confusion wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you haven't gathered from other responses in this thread or are only reading this in your 'threads' view: yes.

Er, no he isn't. (The older David Korn actually wrote a sort-of-competitor to Cygwin, called UWIN.)

Oops, sorry, I took the top comment at face value :(
Post reply on HN