Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
unixretrocomputingvintagecomputin
22 Posts 12 Posters 15 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • vk2bea@mastodon.radioV vk2bea@mastodon.radio

    @thalia that seems dangerous!

    huitema@social.secret-wg.orgH This user is from outside of this forum
    huitema@social.secret-wg.orgH This user is from outside of this forum
    huitema@social.secret-wg.org
    wrote last edited by
    #11

    @vk2bea @thalia
    The ASSIGN statement in Fortran IV and the ALTER statement in COBOL supported ways to redirect the target of a GOTO, much in the same way as the "cursed figure" of C that you described. I assume that at the time, it felt important to have parity between C and Fortran (and maybe COBOL).

    markd@hachyderm.ioM 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • usul@piaille.frU usul@piaille.fr

      @thalia what lond of assembly is that ?

      thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
      thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
      thalia@discuss.systems
      wrote last edited by
      #12

      @usul PDP-11 assembly with UNIX syntax. Those are octal addresses. Unless an address has a $, it refers to the value at that address. * is a dereference.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

        This snippet appears in cvft, a compiler for translating Fortran threaded code to machine code from June 1972, which is notably derived from the early C code generator. See putchar (and also getcha) in dmr/cgd/cvft.c.

        The earliest extant C compiler is last1120c from July 1972, the last C version for the PDP-11/20, before they migrated to the PDP-11/45. This version still has the label lvalue behavior of B seen in cvft. Then, it was changed to the modern behavior by the time of prestruct-c from December 1972. That version supports structures, but does not yet use them itself.

        All three can be found in Dennis_Tapes: https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Applications/Dennis_Tapes

        thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
        thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
        thalia@discuss.systems
        wrote last edited by
        #13

        Another strange pattern from the same program.

        This one reassigns the address of an array, `int nlist[250]`, in char increments. Arrays are no longer lvalues, so this doesn't work anymore. Also, the address is unaligned every other iteration.

        lbp;
        nlist[250];

        getnam()
        {
        extern nlist, lbp;
        char nlist[], lbp[], c;

        loop:
        c = *lbp++;
        if (c==';' | c=='\n')
        goto el;
        *nlist++ = c;
        goto loop;
        el:
        *nlist++ = '\0';
        }

        Somewhat simplified from Dennis_Tapes/dmr/cgd/cg1.c:getnam.

        thalia@discuss.systemsT 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • huitema@social.secret-wg.orgH huitema@social.secret-wg.org

          @vk2bea @thalia
          The ASSIGN statement in Fortran IV and the ALTER statement in COBOL supported ways to redirect the target of a GOTO, much in the same way as the "cursed figure" of C that you described. I assume that at the time, it felt important to have parity between C and Fortran (and maybe COBOL).

          markd@hachyderm.ioM This user is from outside of this forum
          markd@hachyderm.ioM This user is from outside of this forum
          markd@hachyderm.io
          wrote last edited by
          #14

          @huitema @vk2bea @thalia ALTER-like functionality reflects the fact that programming was still evolving to use subroutines/functions and concepts like Structured Programming were still considered radical by old-school programmers at the time**.

          It probably didn't help that this was a time prior to formal programming courses so a lot of programmers were self-taught and developed their craft in isolation (and often in assembler) so using "go to"s and ALTERs came pretty naturally.

          IOWs, if you wanted a language that appealed to the masses at the time then you pretty well had to include goto and ALTER.

          ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_programming#Debate

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • djl@mastodon.mit.eduD djl@mastodon.mit.edu

            @bms48 @thalia

            " like kicking dead whales down the beach."

            Hmm. I used BCPL on Tenex in 1980, and don't remember having problems.

            And my dad had a PDP-7 at work. This one.

            Link Preview Image
            FAF_PDP7web.jpg by David in Tokyo

            favicon

            PBase (pbase.com)

            bms48@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
            bms48@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
            bms48@mastodon.social
            wrote last edited by
            #15

            @djl @thalia This was largely because of the constant need to translate longword-pointers to byte ones when interworking between modules with BCPL and C linkage. It only specifically affected AmigaDOS and not other subsystems (exec, graphics, intuition etc.)

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

              Another strange pattern from the same program.

              This one reassigns the address of an array, `int nlist[250]`, in char increments. Arrays are no longer lvalues, so this doesn't work anymore. Also, the address is unaligned every other iteration.

              lbp;
              nlist[250];

              getnam()
              {
              extern nlist, lbp;
              char nlist[], lbp[], c;

              loop:
              c = *lbp++;
              if (c==';' | c=='\n')
              goto el;
              *nlist++ = c;
              goto loop;
              el:
              *nlist++ = '\0';
              }

              Somewhat simplified from Dennis_Tapes/dmr/cgd/cg1.c:getnam.

              thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
              thalia@discuss.systemsT This user is from outside of this forum
              thalia@discuss.systems
              wrote last edited by
              #16

              This snippet deliberately triggers a "Bus error -- Core dumped":

              int o1[];
              o1 = -3;
              *o1;

              From Dennis_Tapes/dmr/cgd/cg1.c:expr.

              aap@mastodon.sdf.orgA 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

                For example, this is a clever way to initialize once:

                goto init;
                init:
                ouptr = oubuf;
                init = init1;
                init1:

                which is compiled to:

                jmp *4120
                mov 4136,4144
                mov 4122,4120

                Note the indirect jump and assignment to that address. All gotos used indirect jumps. This apparently would have also worked with functions.

                #c #unix #retrocomputing #vintagecomputing

                rupertreynolds@hachyderm.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                rupertreynolds@hachyderm.ioR This user is from outside of this forum
                rupertreynolds@hachyderm.io
                wrote last edited by
                #17

                @thalia Eeeek! Make it go away!

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                  A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

                  For example, this is a clever way to initialize once:

                  goto init;
                  init:
                  ouptr = oubuf;
                  init = init1;
                  init1:

                  which is compiled to:

                  jmp *4120
                  mov 4136,4144
                  mov 4122,4120

                  Note the indirect jump and assignment to that address. All gotos used indirect jumps. This apparently would have also worked with functions.

                  #c #unix #retrocomputing #vintagecomputing

                  sigmasternchen@comfy.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sigmasternchen@comfy.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sigmasternchen@comfy.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #18
                  @thalia@discuss.systems I’m sorry. What.
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                    A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

                    For example, this is a clever way to initialize once:

                    goto init;
                    init:
                    ouptr = oubuf;
                    init = init1;
                    init1:

                    which is compiled to:

                    jmp *4120
                    mov 4136,4144
                    mov 4122,4120

                    Note the indirect jump and assignment to that address. All gotos used indirect jumps. This apparently would have also worked with functions.

                    #c #unix #retrocomputing #vintagecomputing

                    eniko@mastodon.gamedev.placeE This user is from outside of this forum
                    eniko@mastodon.gamedev.placeE This user is from outside of this forum
                    eniko@mastodon.gamedev.place
                    wrote last edited by
                    #19

                    @thalia oh this is cool, basically self-modifying code in C!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                      @djl I'm afraid I don't speak PDP-6 / PDP-10 assembly (yet?). Could you elucidate?

                      djl@mastodon.mit.eduD This user is from outside of this forum
                      djl@mastodon.mit.eduD This user is from outside of this forum
                      djl@mastodon.mit.edu
                      wrote last edited by
                      #20

                      @thalia

                      PUSHJ, PUSHJ, POPJ P,
                      JRST . + 1203

                      pushjay, pushjay, popjay pee
                      Jrst to point plus twelve oh three

                      PUSHJ is the recursive subroutine call, POPJ is the return therefrom, both require the stack register to be stipulated.

                      JRST is the unconditional jump instruction, and "." ("point") is the current address.

                      The point of 1203 being that it's a pretty random place in memory that's really unlikely to have code starting there that makes any sense.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                        This snippet deliberately triggers a "Bus error -- Core dumped":

                        int o1[];
                        o1 = -3;
                        *o1;

                        From Dennis_Tapes/dmr/cgd/cg1.c:expr.

                        aap@mastodon.sdf.orgA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aap@mastodon.sdf.orgA This user is from outside of this forum
                        aap@mastodon.sdf.org
                        wrote last edited by
                        #21

                        @thalia Very interesting program too 🙂 did it ever up in anything later or was it more like an experiment?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • thalia@discuss.systemsT thalia@discuss.systems

                          A cursed feature of C in 1972: Labels and functions were reassignable (i.e., lvalues)!

                          For example, this is a clever way to initialize once:

                          goto init;
                          init:
                          ouptr = oubuf;
                          init = init1;
                          init1:

                          which is compiled to:

                          jmp *4120
                          mov 4136,4144
                          mov 4122,4120

                          Note the indirect jump and assignment to that address. All gotos used indirect jumps. This apparently would have also worked with functions.

                          #c #unix #retrocomputing #vintagecomputing

                          sobex@social.sciences.reS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sobex@social.sciences.reS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sobex@social.sciences.re
                          wrote last edited by
                          #22

                          @thalia Very cursed indeed !
                          I'm glad this was removed before it ever got standardized. (Otherwise we'd still be stuck with it nowadays, right @thephd ?)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • World
                          • Users
                          • Groups