英文字典中文字典


英文字典中文字典51ZiDian.com



中文字典辞典   英文字典 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p   q   r   s   t   u   v   w   x   y   z       







请输入英文单字,中文词皆可:

vaxocentrism    
/vak"soh-sen"trizm/ [analogy with "ethnocentrism"] A notional
disease said to afflict C programmers who persist in coding
according to certain assumptions that are valid (especially
under Unix) on {VAXen} but false elsewhere. Among these are:

1. The assumption that dereferencing a null pointer is safe
because it is all bits 0, and location 0 is readable and 0.
Problem: this may instead cause an illegal-address trap on
non-VAXen, and even on VAXen under OSes other than BSD Unix.
Usually this is an implicit assumption of sloppy code
(forgetting to check the pointer before using it), rather than
deliberate exploitation of a misfeature.

2. The assumption that characters are signed.

3. The assumption that a pointer to any one type can freely be
cast into a pointer to any other type. A stronger form of
this is the assumption that all pointers are the same size and
format, which means you don't have to worry about getting the
casts or types correct in calls. Problem: this fails on
word-oriented machines or others with multiple pointer
formats.

4. The assumption that the parameters of a routine are stored
in memory, on a stack, contiguously, and in strictly ascending
or descending order. Problem: this fails on many RISC
architectures.

5. The assumption that pointer and integer types are the same
size, and that pointers can be stuffed into integer variables
(and vice-versa) and drawn back out without being truncated or
mangled. Problem: this fails on segmented architectures or
word-oriented machines with funny pointer formats.

6. The assumption that a data type of any size may begin at
any byte address in memory (for example, that you can freely
construct and dereference a pointer to a word- or
greater-sized object at an odd char address). Problem: this
fails on many (especially RISC) architectures better optimised
for {HLL} execution speed, and can cause an illegal address
fault or bus error.

7. The (related) assumption that there is no padding at the
end of types and that in an array you can thus step right from
the last byte of a previous component to the first byte of the
next one. This is not only machine- but compiler-dependent.

8. The assumption that memory address space is globally flat
and that the array reference "foo[-1]" is necessarily valid.
Problem: this fails at 0, or other places on segment-addressed
machines like Intel chips (yes, segmentation is universally
considered a {brain-damaged} way to design machines (see
{moby}), but that is a separate issue).

9. The assumption that objects can be arbitrarily large with
no special considerations. Problem: this fails on segmented
architectures and under non-virtual-addressing environments.

10. The assumption that the stack can be as large as memory.
Problem: this fails on segmented architectures or almost
anything else without virtual addressing and a paged stack.

11. The assumption that bits and addressable units within an
object are ordered in the same way and that this order is a
constant of nature. Problem: this fails on {big-endian}
machines.

12. The assumption that it is meaningful to compare pointers
to different objects not located within the same array, or to
objects of different types. Problem: the former fails on
segmented architectures, the latter on word-oriented machines
or others with multiple pointer formats.

13. The assumption that an "int" is 32 bits, or (nearly
equivalently) the assumption that "sizeof(int) ==
sizeof(long)". Problem: this fails on {PDP-11s}, {Intel
80286}-based systems and even on {Intel 80386} and {Motorola
68000} systems under some compilers.

14. The assumption that "argv[]" is writable. Problem: this
fails in many embedded-systems C environments and even under a
few flavours of Unix.

Note that a programmer can validly be accused of vaxocentrism
even if he or she has never seen a VAX. Some of these
assumptions (especially 2--5) were valid on the {PDP-11}, the
original {C} machine, and became endemic years before the VAX.
The terms "vaxocentricity" and "all-the-world"s-a-VAX
syndrome' have been used synonymously.

[{Jargon File}]

vaxocentrism: /vak`soh·sen´trizm/, n. [analogy withethnocentrism’] A notional disease said
to afflict C programmers who persist in coding according to certain
assumptions that are valid (esp. under Unix) on
VAXen but false elsewhere. Among these are:

  1. The assumption that dereferencing a null pointer is safe because it is all
    bits 0, and location 0 is readable and 0. Problem: this may instead cause an
    illegal-address trap on non-VAXen, and even on VAXen under OSes other than BSD
    Unix. Usually this is an implicit assumption of sloppy code (forgetting to
    check the pointer before using it), rather than deliberate exploitation of a
    misfeature.

  2. The assumption that characters are signed.

  3. The assumption that a pointer to any one type can freely be cast into a
    pointer to any other type. A stronger form of this is the assumption that all
    pointers are the same size and format, which means you don't have to worry
    about getting the casts or types correct in calls. Problem: this fails on
    word-oriented machines or others with multiple pointer formats.

  4. The assumption that the parameters of a routine are stored in memory, on a
    stack, contiguously, and in strictly ascending or descending order. Problem:
    this fails on many RISC architectures.

  5. The assumption that pointer and integer types are the same size, and that
    pointers can be stuffed into integer variables (and vice-versa) and drawn back
    out without being truncated or mangled. Problem: this fails on segmented
    architectures or word-oriented machines with funny pointer formats.

  6. The assumption that a data type of any size may begin at any byte address in
    memory (for example, that you can freely construct and dereference a pointer
    to a word- or greater-sized object at an odd char address). Problem: this
    fails on many (esp. RISC) architectures better optimized for
    HLL execution speed, and can cause an illegal address
    fault or bus error.

  7. The (related) assumption that there is no padding at the end of types and that
    in an array you can thus step right from the last byte of a previous component
    to the first byte of the next one. This is not only machine- but
    compiler-dependent.

  8. The assumption that memory address space is globally flat and that the array
    reference foo[-1] is necessarily valid.
    Problem: this fails at 0, or other places on segment-addressed machines like
    Intel chips (yes, segmentation is universally considered a
    brain-damaged way to design machines (see
    moby), but that is a separate issue).

  9. The assumption that objects can be arbitrarily large with no special
    considerations. Problem: this fails on segmented architectures and under
    non-virtual-addressing environments.

  10. The assumption that the stack can be as large as memory. Problem: this fails
    on segmented architectures or almost anything else without virtual addressing
    and a paged stack.

  11. The assumption that bits and addressable units within an object are ordered in
    the same way and that this order is a constant of nature. Problem: this fails
    on big-endian machines.

  12. The assumption that it is meaningful to compare pointers to different objects
    not located within the same array, or to objects of different types. Problem:
    the former fails on segmented architectures, the latter on word-oriented
    machines or others with multiple pointer formats.

  13. The assumption that an int is 32 bits, or (nearly equivalently)
    the assumption that sizeof(int) ==
    sizeof(long)
    . Problem: this fails on PDP-11s, 286-based systems and
    even on 386 and 68000 systems under some compilers (and on 64-bit systems like
    the Alpha, of course).

  14. The assumption that argv[] is
    writable. Problem: this fails in many embedded-systems C environments and even
    under a few flavors of Unix.
Note that a programmer can validly be accused of vaxocentrism even if
he or she has never seen a VAX. Some of these
assumptions (esp. 2--5) were valid on the PDP-11,
the original C machine, and became endemic years before the VAX. The terms
vaxocentricity and all-the-world's-a-VAX syndrome have been used
synonymously.


请选择你想看的字典辞典:
单词字典翻译
vaxocentrism查看 vaxocentrism 在百度字典中的解释百度英翻中〔查看〕
vaxocentrism查看 vaxocentrism 在Google字典中的解释Google英翻中〔查看〕
vaxocentrism查看 vaxocentrism 在Yahoo字典中的解释Yahoo英翻中〔查看〕





安装中文字典英文字典查询工具!


中文字典英文字典工具:
选择颜色:
输入中英文单字

































































英文字典中文字典相关资料:


  • Screen Brightness in Bootcamp Windows 10 … - Apple Community
    Screen Brightness in Bootcamp Windows 10 Preview I recently installed the Windows 10 Preview via Bootcamp on both my 2012 iMac and 2012 MBP both with Yosemite Both installations went fine except for the MBP's screen brightness It will only go to about 75% brightness even though it says 100% leaving me with a pretty dim screen
  • Cant change brightness latest Win10 Upda… - Apple Community
    When I use the brightness keys, the slider moves in the change screen brightness as well As I've stated earlier, all the drivers are up to date, which includes the Apple Keyboard driver under programs and features
  • Brightness adjustment for Studio Display … - Apple Community
    Brightness adjustment for Studio Display with Windows 10 laptop through Thunderbolt 3 Hi all, As im currently working from home, I use windows laptop (Lenovo Thinkpad P53) for work I’m planning to purchase the Studio Display as an external monitor to use both on my work laptop (windows 10) and MacBook Pro
  • control brightness on Thunderbolt Display… - Apple Community
    5K iMac Boot Camp'd into Windows 10 Connected a Thunderbolt Display as a second screen How do I control brightness for this secondary screen? It's a bit bright at the moment
  • Display brightness dimed on bootcamp - Apple Community
    Hi, I have the latest version of Windows 10 installed on my 27” iMac 5K 2017 I have the bootcamp drivers all up to date I have disabled the auto screen brightness on windows settings, but I have this problem: even if I set the brightness to 100% on windows, the maximum brightness is dimmed in comparison with the maximum screen brightness on macOS As I said, I have disabled the auto screen brightness on windows settings Anyone knows how to achieve the actual maximum display brightness
  • Windows 10 Brightness Issue in BootCamp - Apple Community
    There seems a major issue with brightness when updating video drivers for Windows 10 in BootCamp This could be a known issue as I have seen mention of this in some forums
  • Can not adjust Brightness in Windows 10 - Apple Community
    Can not adjust Brightness in Windows 10 My Macbook Pro is the model of later 2015 with AMD R9 M370X I installed windows 10 through bootcamp By now, all the drivers of bootcamp is up to date everything works well in EI Capitan, while in Win10, I can not adjust screen brightness, but the keyboard backlight adjustion works
  • windows 10 brightness control on 2009 MBP - Apple Community
    windows 10 brightness control on 2009 MBP I just upgraded my Mid-2009 15-inch Macbook Pro from Windows 7 to Windows 10 and the Bootcamp drivers for controlling the brightness no longer work I tried reinstalling Bootcamp but because Apple doesn't officially support anything higher than Windows 7 on my computer I cannot reinstall it





中文字典-英文字典  2005-2009