Who, exactly, has said that? I only said that when comparing fruit and rybka, and seeing setjmp() in both, just shows that this is an even lower probability for a "by chance" accidental duplication by two independent programmers. The more rare the constructs used in two apparent copies, the more likely the two are actually related. I never said finding it in Rybka proved anything, I clearly said that it is just another small piece of data.CThinker wrote:I agree with Bob that the chances of two original work being identical is relly low. Especially low for the resulting binaries to be identical.
However, what I disagree with is with the particular setjmp example.
First, it is argued that setjmp is so rare in usage, that, if it is found in a new code, then it must have been copied from Fruit. The reality is, the use of try/catch/jmp is very common and is a programming 'pattern'. When programmers see that there is process that can be interrupted and that its state is not needed, then one can simply restore from a saved state when interrupted.
I don't see why every word I write has to be subject to exaggeration or interpreted based on oddball grammatical parsing rather than what was actually said.
Nope, because we are looking at a significant block of code. And adding an oddball mechanism for terminating the search just makes the two codes look more like one came from the other.Surely, no one would claim that Fruit was copied from TSCP, since TSCP used setjmp before Fruit did.
I hate to be rude, but who cares? That is _not_ what has been discussed. The fact that two pieces of code have a significant number of identical lines, and then adding setjmp() only adds to the likelihood one came from the other.
If you study the code, you can see that "there is no copying of ideas" either. The implementations of known users of setjmp are all different.
And again, who cares? Look at the fruit/rybka example instead, which shows the _identical_ way setjmp() (among other things) can be used. This has become a common approach to arguing in this discussion, and it is horribly flawed. First you say we said something we didn't say, then you try to show that that statement has exceptions. Who cares?
Below is a demonstration of the way Fruit, Strelka and TSCP were coded. You will note that there are all very different from each other.
I snipped the rest as it is 100% irrelevant in the current discussion since it is arguing against a statement that has never been made in the first place.