Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #398430
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' |
| Date | 2026-05-07 03:02 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <10tgvcq$bt2$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10su8cn$am9i$1@dont-email.me> <10tflij$19d6u$1@dont-email.me> <10tg55j$kvp$1@reader1.panix.com> <10tgfs8$1i2g4$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <10tgfs8$1i2g4$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 06/05/2026 20:35, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <10tflij$19d6u$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> of what it says. Vis UB you've shown you are unable to do that.
>> Therefore, your opinion on UB is uninformed, and thus not worth
>> significant consideration.
>
>As an implementer I've had to make decisions about what C calls 'UB'.
>Those decisions have generally worked out.
You don't even understand what UB is.
>Most people use off-the-shelf languages so, if they have an opinion
>about it, it is either speculation, or they are comparing with some
>other off-the-shelf language.
Huh? That doesn't follow. Other people have clearly read the
definition in the relevant standards documents and demonstrated
that they understand what it means. They've even explained it
to you. You just do not seem capable of understanding those
explanations, or the concept.
That's not "speculation" or "comparison" or whatever; it's just
reading understanding and figuring out what the words mean.
>So on that basis, mine is somewhat more informed.
Not how it works. To be informed you have to actually
understand the thing.
>> You can choose whatever you like. Some people like neon orange
>> for home decorations. That does not mean that those people are
>> experts on interior decorating.
>
>In the case of a tool I have to use, 10 hours a day every day, then I
>choose. Here the homemade tool won out.
Good for you.
>> Much more meaningful are the actual artifacts you've produced as
>> examples of expertise. You haven't produced that much,
>
>How do you know that exactly? And what artifacts do you have in mind?
I dunno, how about a written description of this language of
yours and its semantics? Have you ever written a paper about
it? An article? Ever presented at a conference? Or even just
given an informal presentation? Have you ever asked anyone else
to comment on your design?
>I produce computer programs.
Ok.
>You want to see binary?
No.
>I can offer a link.
To what, a binary? No thanks.
>However nobody here, all the experts, have ever offered a link to any of
>the work they do, not even privately. I've never seen examples of actual
>programs except answers to fun challenges.
Nonsense. Lots of people here have source code that is online;
many of us make open source contributions. Look them up if you
want.
>So, again, why am I expected to provide credentials?
Because you are claiming expertise, obviously.
>(In 2005 I was invited to a concert at a very large arena in Europe, by
>somebody who had designed the elaborate stage set. That was dominated by
>a set of tall metal towers that were leaning outwards at a 15-degree angle.
>
>Why 15 degrees? Because he'd used my 3D CAD software to help design it,
>and that was the default 'snap' angle that he didn't bother changing.
>
>I guess that was one concrete 'artifact', and that was one client. The
>software was written in my language, with some add-ons written in its
>scripting language that I has also created.)
You must be joking.
>> and your
>> writing and statements betray a deep lack of understanding of
>> the object of your criticism, in this case the C programming
>> language.
>
>Understanding it doesn't make the language much better! I learnt a lot
>more about it when I implemented it in 2017, and my opinion of it
>dropped several notches.
Understanding doesn't change the quality of a thing; that's kind
of obvious. But understanding a thing is a prerequisite for
offering relevant critique of the quality of that thing. Just
based on your statements here over the last few days, you
clearly do not even understand C. So how can you meaningfully
critique it?
>> Put another way, there's no evidence to back up your
>> claim that those years count for much at all.
>
>If it makes you happy, then carry on thinking that.
>
>But suppose the same criticisms came from somebody whom you respected;
>then what? I guess one of two things would happen:
>
>(1) You'd change your mind and agree, and then you'd have to admit I
>might have a point
>
>(2) You still disagreed, in which case my background would not matter at
>all.
Again, a logical fallacy. What I am saying is that you do not
seem to have any special qualifications that should privilege
your opinion of C over that of anyone else, and the evidence,
which is based on your own written statements, show that your
understanding of the C programming language is not very good.
That doesn't mean that all of your opinions about C is therefore
_wrong_. It just means that, when you are right, it is just as
likely (if not somewhat more so) that it is by accident than
otherwise.
>However, if you knew more about the subject, then my opinions would
>stand on their own: are they reasonable or not?
But _you don't_ know more about the subject. That's the point.
>You want to consider that C is what it is because it has to work for any
>whacko hardware past, present and future, so compromises have to be
>made, and backward comnpatibility has to be taken into account.
>
>Whereas my projects were always targeted at whatever machine I was using
> (evolving from PDP10 to x64, with a brief stab at ARM64), and I could
>afford to break compatibility.
>
>Therefore I have an advantage in producing a tidier language with some
>modern conveniences. You might want to admit that rather than just
>trashing everything because you don't care for my attitude.
This is actually evidence of exactly what I've been saying all
along. You claim you have a "tidier language" but a) that's
subjective and b) irrelevant (no one here besides you cares
about your language) and c) doesn't mean anything with respect
to whether or not you understand C.
On the other hand, you are not even capable of understanding
what "undefined behavior" means as written in the the standard;
so why should I, or anyone else, listen to _anything_ you have
to say about the matter? Hint: we shouldn't.
>> I am forced to conclude that you don't actually have much in the
>> way of true expertise in the domain.
>
>What does true expertise look like?
For starters, demonstrating that you know what the terms in the
standard actually mean.
>What are the characteristics of a
>well-designed product?
>
>I have my own set of criteria. A product LLVM, for example, fails on
>just about every one.
So? Why should anyone care about your criteria or opinion?
>>> But then, I first come across C in 1982
>>> and disliked it then; I didn't need 45 extra years of experience to
>>> confirm it!
>>
>> C now is not C from 1982. Void pointers hadn't even been
>> invented then. Function prototypes weren't a thing yet.
>
>My dislike then was superficial. I'd spent £12 on K&R1, but I found it
>so disapppointing as a language (I was used to Fortran, Pascal and the
>Algols, especially Algol68) that I sold it to a colleague for £2.
Perhaps we should add "superficial" to the list of common words
and phrases you do not understand.
>> So in other words, you have no especial expertise in the matter.
>>
>> I had a drill instructor in Marine Corps boot camp once who said
>> rather colorfully, "excuses are like assholes; everybody's got
>> one." Opinions are like that, too.
>
>Huh. This is C:
>
> uint64_t F(uint64_t s, uint64_t t, uint64_t u, uint64_t v) ...
>
>This is my language:
>
> func F(u64 s, t, u, v)u64 ...
That's awful.
>All the parameters are the same type. If you change that first u64, they
>all change. The parameter names are 's t u v'.
>
>They are the same types in the C too, but you have to work harder to
>double-check they are in fact identical. If you change that type, then
>you have to change it at multiple sites; if you forget one, the compiler
>will not tell you.
>
>You will also have a harder type discerning the parameter names, as
>there are dominated by all those ugly types.
>
>This is one tiny example of better ergonomics. Now you're going to tell
>me the C version is better!
No. I'm going to tell you that nobody cares what your language
does and what you just wrote is a total non sequitur. None of
this demonstrates expertise in C.
>>> C's use of curly braces do have a number of problems:
>>>
>>> if (c)
>>> x;
>>> y;
>>>
>>> if (c1)
>>> x; // [This line shouldn't be here]
>>> if (c2);
>>> y;
>>> else
>>> z;
>>>
>>> What's happened with C is that a thousand times as much effort has gone
>>> into compilers that try to detect and mitigate all its issues, as would
>>> have taken to just fix the language in the first place.
>>
>> This is exactly the sort of ill-informed argument that I'm
>> talking about.
>
>Yet it is true. C compilers do have to work harder to detect things in
>C, which wouldn't be necessary with a more thoughtful design.
...but that has nothing to do with curly braces....
>> Note that there is not a single curly brace in
>> the example above.
>
>You noticed! They being optional is the point.
...which has nothing to do with them being curly braces....
>> The statement I suspect you are _trying_ to make is that the
>> grammar of the language matches code that a human might see as
>> ambiguous, particularly if formatted in a misleading way. In
>> particular, the `secondary-block` production allows the braces
>> to be elided in a way that is _usually_ grammatically correct,
>> but may not be what the programmer intended.
>>
>> Two things on that.
>>
>> First, Pascal uses, `begin` and `end` to delimit block, but
>> those are often _also_ optional in a similar way, and arguably
>> it suffers from the same problem.
>
>Yes, Algol60 and Pascal had the same annoying problem, in giving rise to
>examples like this:
>
> [snip a bunch of subjective assertions that only tangentially
> mention curly braces]
>
>> Second, consider both Go and Rust, which use matched braces as
>> delimiters, but make them required (and provide pretty-printers
>> to format code readably, so that the structure is evident).
>> Neither suffers from the ambiguity problems of the above snippet
>> despite using curly braces.
>
>They either need 'elsif/elseif', or there is a special rule for 'if' so
>that you can write 'else if ...' instead of 'else {if ...'.
...which has nothing to do with curly braces....
>> I conclude that the actual tokens used to delimit block
>> structure are purely incidental.
>
>The problems are partly {} being optional, which makes it error prone
>(forget one brace, but it is balanced by an extra one elsewhere), and
>also by the plethora of placement options, leading to lots of diverse
>styles.
...which has nothing to do with the choice of symbols for the
delimiter tokens; that is, nothing to do with curly braces.
>(There are fewer ways to arrange one token 'else', compared with the
>three in '} else {'.)
...which has nothing to do with curly braces as delimiter
tokens.
>I also dislike braces because I don't consider them substantial enough
>for multi-line blocks. They're OK on one line, or for machine-generated
>code.
This is completely subjective.
>> Well, that curly braces are a problem with the language, for
>> one. See the previous example.
>
>And see my new comments.
Your comments had little to do with curly braces; rather they
expressed a subjective dislike for matched delimiter pairs
denoting block scope. The only comment that was _actually_
about braces amounted to a statement that you don't like them.
>>> Those people did not invent their own languages and implementations.
>>
>> Perhaps they did not; at least as far as you are aware of. But
>> so what? How is that relevant?
>
>It shows my product was not a toy,
Nope. That doesn't follow at all. Whether someone else
developed their own language and implementation has absolutely
nothing to do with whether your thing is a toy or not; these
are orthogonal.
>which you were using to belittle my arguments.
I'm using your arguments to belittle your arguments. They're
just not good.
>If you were writing apps in the 1980s on machines like PCs,
>then you were probably responsible for 99% of code running while your
>app was active, including drivers and library vector and bitmap graphics.
>
>The language used had some heavy lifting to do, and mine was also
>self-hosted. It earned its keep.
Ok.
...none of which qualifies you as an expert on C, programming
language, or compiler design.
>>> The
>>> point was brought up because you were dismissing my efforts as worthless
>>> toys.
>>
>> Yes. What I suspect happened is that you stumbled onto a niche
>> that is vanishingly small, with few or no other players, so you
>> were able to dictate your own technology terms,
>
>This is getting tedious. You can't seem to stand the fact that I may
>have done something worthwhile, and have to find excuses. So maybe it
>was all luck!
No, I am not making any statements about whether what you did
was worthwhile or not; honestly I don't care.
What I am saying is that none of it qualifies as you as an
expert on language or compiler design, nor on C.
>My product was low-end CAD. At one time I believe it was second to
>AutoCAD in the Netherlands. Yes, it was a dull sector and not very sexy,
>but why does that have to detract from what I managed to do?
It doesn't. But it doesn't mean that what you managed to do has
qualified you in some unique way to have opinions on programming
lanauges. Or compilers. Or C.
>For that matter, there were a few other players too.
Ok.
>> But that does not make you an expert in C, or qualify your
>> opinions above those of others, and your public statements show
>> a lack of understanding of the language itself.
>
>I've suggested that signed overflow should be either well-defined by the
>language, with wraparound semantics like unsigned, or be implementation
>defined. See my post at 12:00 BST, today 6th.
Even today your statements suggested you still don't have a good
handle on what "undefined behavior" means.
>You don't agree, OK (and it's never going to happen anyway).
I never said I disagreed. What I said is that your opinion is
not well-informed.
>But you decide to go on a long campaign to discredit me, and try to
>destroy and belittle everything I've done ('it must have been a fluke!')
>to the extent that I'm starting to have serious self-doubts.
>
>I shouldn't be affected by the personal digs of a random guy on the
>internet, but there we here. Last year I had to take a 6-month break
>from this forum because it was becoming a toxic environment.
>
>Maybe it's time to do the same.
Probably a good idea.
You post a bunch of misinformed claptrap, claim without evidence
to be some kind of expert because you designed your own language
and wrote a compiler for it back in the 1980s, smugly proclaim
that it is better than C, but can't really support that
assertion, and now that people are pointing out how none of your
arguments really hold up and you keep making factual
misstatements, keep arguing leaving gaps in logic, and that you
keep indulging in logical fallacies, all about the area you
claim to be an expert in, and now you're saying that that's
making you feel bad? Wow.
>> "Just about"? As in, not fully? Actually, don't answer that; I
>> don't care. If you think that in itself is sufficient
>> demonstration already tells me everything I need to know.
>
>FFS. Not many people write C compilers, especially those that dislike
>the language. Can't I have just one win?!
Sure. You can have a win. Go read and internalize what UB
means and demonstrate that you understand it. That'd be a win:
you would learn something, and people would take you more
seriously.
>>> While my 2026 language is old-fashioned compared with modern languages,
>>> it runs rings around C. Here are some highlights:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Everything on the list you presented is one or more of,
>> a. subjective,
>> b. arguably a bad choice,
>> c. hardly novel.
>>
>> None of it is evidence that your language "runs rings around C".
>
>I could provide a 100-long list that goes into more micro-features but
>I'd be wasting my time. There's no point in providing links either. You
>have already made up your mind.
>
>Note that:
>
>* There are no C-style header files
>* There are no separate declarations needed, neither in shared headers,
>nor as prototypes
>* If a module is imported by 50 others, it is processed exactly once
>* Project info (modules etc) is present in only one module of a project.
>(Most module schemes require import directives in every module)
>* That means no external build system is needed.
>
>Just that is HUGE.
See above, caveat that the modules thing sounds like a huge
mess.
>> And moreover, even if it did, your language is not subject to
>> any of the real-world constraints that C is vis installed base
>> or backwards compatibility, or the need to run on anything other
>> than a tiny set of machine architectures decided solely by you.
>> You have it positively _easy_ compared to C.
>
>Exactly! (I've probably mentioned it in this long post.)
>
>For that very reason my language has the advantage, and that helps with
>productivity.
No, it just means that code in your language is proprietary and
not particularly portable. Neither of those is an "advantage."
> > than a tiny set of machine architectures decided solely by you.
>
>It will run on x64/Windows. It could also run on any other 64-bit
>platform if I were to create a backend. (It will do that now if I deign
>to use its C backend, but that only exists on an older compiler.)
>
>A version of it, with a restricted front-end, targets 8-bit Z80 (but
>won't run /on/ the Z80).
>
>Look, C wouldn't run on much either if it weren't for an army of people
>doing all the work! The language itself runs on NOTHING until somebody
>implements it.
Non-sequitur.
>>> You are determined to belittle any of my achievements.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't care about your achievements one way or the
>> other. They don't affect me in any material way.
>
>They seem to annoy you.
Not at all. They're just not evidence of the things you claim
them to be evidence of. They're irrelevant to me, either way.
>> Further, you are claiming an above average level of expertise
>> that you have not shown yourself to possess.
>
>That's your opinion. But I am not sure you have the expertise in this
>area to be able to judge.
That's ok. I am quite certain that you do not have that
expertise.
>>> However lots of people do believe that working directly on hardware
>>> gives you valuable insights.
>>
>> Sure. Into hardware. Perhaps into architecture. Perhaps it
>> leads to the realization that the real world is analog and the
>> "digital" nature of computers is a bit of a parlor trick made
>> from timing smoke and fuzzily defined ranges for "logic level"
>> mirrors.
>>
>> But into the design of programming languages or compilers? No.
>
>OK, now I am more sure, and so I won't take this line any further.
Good. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
>>> It is 100% relevant since PLs have to be implemented on real hardware.
>>
>> Actually, that's demonstrably not true. Consider bytecode
>> interpreters, such as the JVM, or transpilation to other
>> languages.
>
>Bytecode interpreters have to be implemented on real hardware. Remember
>I do both!
But that's not what you said. You said, "PLs have to be
implemented on real hardware." A byte code interpreter may be
implemented in a program that runs directly on hardware (or in
its own ersatz threaded code interpreter, say). But that is
qualitatively different than running directly on the bare metal.
I see you snipped the vinette about Lisp.
>> Ah, see, you admit it. You don't just think that you are
>> entitled to an opinion, _you believe that you are entitled to
>> your opinion being respected_.
>
>This is something I encounter a lot. Somebody ends up with 'X', a big
>steaming pile of complexity, layer upon layer, full of ancient folklore,
>that only a few gurus know completely (or nobody in the case of C++).
>
>Then somebody comes along and questions that complexity. They want to
>get quickly and easily from A to B but don't like dealing with X in the
>middle which is causing problems.
>
>However if they complain, they get told that they don't understand X and
>they don't know what they're talking about.
>
>Needing to understand X is the problem.
Non-sequitur to what I just said. None of it changes the fact
that you believe you are not only entitled to _an_ opinion, but
also entitled to that opinion commanding respect. But again,
you've produced scant little evidence supporting that assertion,
and you certainly have not earned the right to demand that your
opinion be "respected."
- Dan C.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-04-30 00:39 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 09:11 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-04-29 21:12 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-04-29 19:56 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 11:30 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-04-30 00:56 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 10:47 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-04-30 19:35 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-04-30 14:04 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 12:32 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-02 08:57 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 11:58 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 19:59 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 15:13 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 22:32 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 17:17 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-02 16:56 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:35 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-02 22:45 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 15:02 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-02 17:24 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-02 10:54 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 05:19 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-02 16:50 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 07:56 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-02 14:18 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 15:52 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-02 16:39 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 21:16 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 01:38 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 17:52 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 12:39 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 14:19 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-04 08:41 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-04 11:22 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 13:47 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-05 02:12 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-05 15:02 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-06 04:06 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-05 08:47 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 00:11 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 00:15 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-03 08:26 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 14:24 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-03 18:53 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 19:46 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-03 23:07 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 21:19 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 16:02 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-06 19:43 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-08 18:47 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 15:10 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-09 12:40 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 20:30 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-08 21:39 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 01:09 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 06:25 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 09:14 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-10 16:44 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 17:27 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 00:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 11:18 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 17:39 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-04 00:55 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 16:50 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-02 18:53 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 14:46 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 01:14 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-02 17:02 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-02 23:51 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 01:20 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 07:43 +0800
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-03 14:27 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-03 20:27 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 00:30 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 01:55 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 02:21 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-03 08:53 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 11:59 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 13:27 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 13:46 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 15:06 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 17:39 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 20:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 21:29 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-03 23:11 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 15:47 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-03 23:59 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-04 09:28 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-04 13:22 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 15:17 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 14:14 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 14:21 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 16:05 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-04 22:24 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 16:16 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-05 00:40 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 17:24 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-05 16:58 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-05 00:04 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 17:34 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 01:59 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 14:37 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-05 15:00 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 01:04 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-04 19:38 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-05 09:34 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 13:40 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-05 09:04 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 00:19 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-05 17:06 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 01:57 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 00:48 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-05 02:27 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 13:02 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-05 14:56 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-05 15:07 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 16:34 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-05 20:17 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 21:08 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-05 23:30 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-05 23:06 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-06 02:23 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-06 12:37 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-06 16:09 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-06 15:21 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-06 18:02 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-06 19:35 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-06 23:38 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 03:02 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 12:10 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-07 08:32 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 15:36 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 18:20 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 20:55 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 23:20 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 14:55 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 17:39 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 17:10 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 18:31 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 17:51 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-09 08:48 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 18:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-08 08:32 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 11:15 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 16:50 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-08 14:00 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-08 13:25 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-08 15:51 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 17:13 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 14:57 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-09 06:35 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 20:13 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-09 23:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 22:31 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 21:49 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-07 23:05 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-07 23:11 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 18:04 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-07 13:19 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 15:12 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 03:42 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 12:48 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 06:00 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-07 15:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 15:02 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 16:48 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-07 20:30 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 19:17 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-07 15:48 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 15:17 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-07 17:04 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 17:07 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 19:30 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-08 09:22 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 18:24 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-08 17:08 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 10:25 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 11:51 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-08 21:31 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 20:02 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-07 08:41 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-07 20:39 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-07 13:14 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-08 08:18 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 11:33 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 12:48 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 09:58 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 21:04 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 13:15 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 03:02 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-09 12:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 15:51 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 19:02 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-07 20:56 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 22:08 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 02:07 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-08 12:43 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-10 20:31 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-11 08:55 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 17:07 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 18:56 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-11 22:37 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 14:30 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-12 08:35 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 00:38 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 14:05 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-12 16:32 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 17:27 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 15:33 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 16:00 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-12 23:14 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 19:48 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 05:26 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 15:07 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:16 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-13 13:20 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-13 17:16 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 15:52 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 02:59 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-14 01:39 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 03:57 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:34 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 13:36 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 13:10 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-12 16:46 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-12 15:19 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 19:02 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 14:33 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 11:44 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 21:22 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 15:57 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-12 19:07 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 18:09 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-12 18:45 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 21:24 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:14 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:12 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 14:40 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:41 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 18:36 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 14:47 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 18:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-08 22:43 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 02:32 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 01:36 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 07:23 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 12:37 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-11 08:06 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 10:56 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 11:32 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 20:04 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 20:14 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-09 15:19 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 09:23 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-08 19:58 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 10:38 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-07 07:46 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-08 21:02 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-08 21:47 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-08 22:58 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-08 16:56 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 07:37 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-09 17:39 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-09 00:37 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 01:57 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-09 11:56 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 15:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-09 17:16 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-09 18:38 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-09 19:20 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 04:15 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-10 11:29 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 03:25 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 12:29 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 12:39 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 14:51 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 16:28 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 04:27 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 15:14 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 15:55 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-10 15:03 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 14:38 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 16:37 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 18:00 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-10 18:53 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 14:58 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 16:47 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 16:22 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 17:57 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-10 22:46 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 17:03 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 11:53 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-11 18:11 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:05 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 19:24 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 19:04 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 20:52 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 20:04 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-11 22:45 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 13:46 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-10 18:55 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 12:53 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-10 20:15 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-10 18:52 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2026-05-10 23:19 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 18:37 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-11 09:29 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-11 00:26 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-10 20:36 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 18:19 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 14:45 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-11 08:10 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 15:58 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 18:21 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:46 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 19:34 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 14:23 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-11 23:57 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 20:47 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 11:02 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 15:20 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 03:14 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 03:50 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:11 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:25 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 04:07 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:35 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-13 13:54 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 11:00 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 11:39 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 15:42 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 03:46 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-14 00:38 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 03:39 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-14 07:47 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:22 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 19:20 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 13:51 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 01:35 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 06:19 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 12:52 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 11:49 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 12:59 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 17:10 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 01:21 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 17:42 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 02:33 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 18:43 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-10 20:30 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 15:17 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-11 18:12 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-11 23:48 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-12 10:42 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 07:12 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-12 22:21 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-12 19:19 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-13 11:17 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-09 05:50 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 08:39 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-09 13:10 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 14:49 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 00:25 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 00:16 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 06:39 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 13:22 +0100
Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 13:05 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 18:37 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 22:32 +0100
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 15:28 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 02:49 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 03:26 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-13 12:32 +0100
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 14:42 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:28 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 04:30 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 19:58 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 14:57 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:35 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 20:18 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-13 21:46 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 15:45 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 04:48 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-13 15:12 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-14 04:56 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 16:33 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-12 23:21 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-13 02:53 +0200
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-13 14:15 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-13 12:30 -0700
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 20:20 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 02:40 +0000
Re: Alternatives to C (was Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int') Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-12 15:11 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 15:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 01:17 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 15:47 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-09 23:33 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 00:45 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 17:33 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-10 03:46 +0300
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 17:54 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 13:21 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 02:26 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 19:01 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 12:06 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 16:11 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 00:58 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 17:31 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-11 01:44 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 03:09 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 12:15 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 15:19 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-11 19:06 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 21:29 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-11 18:32 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 03:44 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-11 20:53 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-12 14:27 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-13 11:37 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-13 20:28 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 02:18 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 19:48 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 12:39 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:12 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 19:30 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:34 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 19:42 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 21:21 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-11 07:43 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 13:57 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 07:09 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-10 07:00 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-10 12:44 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 16:45 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-11 07:58 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 13:55 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-10 14:34 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-10 15:42 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-10 13:23 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 21:28 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 12:53 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 13:54 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 16:48 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-11 18:26 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:20 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 19:38 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 18:50 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 11:58 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 18:44 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 19:28 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 19:41 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 14:16 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 16:13 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 21:03 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-11 20:08 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-11 15:25 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-11 17:03 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-09 21:25 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-09 07:31 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-06 21:45 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 09:30 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-07 03:44 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-07 18:03 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-07 14:45 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-05 22:27 +0200
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 16:09 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-05 16:52 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-03 19:26 +0000
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-03 20:33 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 15:05 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-04 15:09 -0400
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 14:58 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-04 00:34 +0100
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-03 17:07 -0700
Re: Safety of casting from 'long' to 'int' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-04 01:23 +0000
(Thread has 634 articles, showing 500 — browse group in flat view)
csiph-web