Re: transpiling to low level C

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 09:46:46 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>

And Tim did not rule out using the standard library,

>
Are you sure?

>
I explicitly called out setjmp and longjmp as being excluded.
Based on that, it's reasonable to infer the rest of the
standard library is allowed.
>
Furthermore I don't think it matters.

>
Hmm...  I'm puzzled.  Where does the unbounded store come from without
I/O?  Do you take "C is Turing complete" to mean that there is a
theoretically possible implementation of C sufficient for any given
problem instance (rather than for any given problem)?  That's not how
different models are usually compared, and I think it would run into
some rather odd theoretical problems.

Sorry, it seems my comment was misleading.  I thought it was
apparent from the rest of my paragraph (not shown in your excerpt)
that my statement was meant as "Furthermore I don't think it matters
if _most_ of the standard library is excluded."  There had been a
mention of printf as being infringing (which in my view is silly,
but never mind that), so I wanted to point out that most of the
standard library is irrelevant, including in particular [f]printf.

There is a somewhat informal version of "C (with the restrictions you
have stated) is Turing complete" which just means "you can do anything
you want provided you don't hit an implementation limit".

Yes, I'm familiar with that, and I knowingly glossed over the
distinction, because I think it's customary, when talking about
Turing Completeness relative to conventional programming languages,
to ignore the finiteness of conventional language models.  I should
have known better with you in the audience.  You got me! :)