Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #395527
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: _BitInt(N) |
| Date | 2025-11-27 16:02 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20251127160223.0000141e@yahoo.com> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <10g7oqf$ojir$1@dont-email.me> <10g7ue4$r47b$1@dont-email.me> <10g9a0r$1a895$1@dont-email.me> <10g9fmh$1crf0$1@dont-email.me> <10g9i5e$1dpa3$1@dont-email.me> |
On Thu, 27 Nov 2025 14:02:38 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 27/11/2025 13:20, bart wrote:
> > On 27/11/2025 10:43, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 26/11/2025 23:19, bart wrote:
> >
> >
> >> What I don't like about your bit extraction operations is that you
> >> have an operator syntax for a fairly obscure and rarely used
> >> operation.
> >
> > So shift and masking operations in C are obscure?!
>
> Both shift operators and bitwise operators have lots of other uses.
>
> When you are designing a programming language, you first provide
> general features that can be used for multiple purposes. You only
> implement specialised features if the need arises - it is too
> cumbersome, or error-prone, or inefficient, or laborious to use the
> general features.
>
> In some areas of C usage, shifts and masks - and bitfield extraction
> - turn up quite a bit. But it seems the C operators work fine for
> the task. It would not exactly be difficult to add a standard
> "bit_range_extract" function to the C standard library, yet no one
> has felt it to be worth the effort over the last 50 years. Perhaps
> it is not as essential or fundamental as you think? Or perhaps C's
> current features do the job well enough that there's no need for
> anything else?
>
> >
> > A
> >> "bit_range_extract" standard library function would make more
> >> sense to me, though I think shifting and masking works well enough
> >> for the few situations where you need it. A syntax that looks
> >> very much like array access is not going to be helpful to people
> >> looking at the code
> >> - for general-purpose languages, most programmers will never see
> >> or use bit ranges.
> >
> > The syntax actually comes from DEC Algol60 IIRC. It was used to
> > access individual characters of a string, normally an indivisible
> > type in that language, and I applied the same concept to bits of an
> > integer.
>
> I don't care if you found the syntax on the back of a cornflakes
> packet. The origin is not relevant.
>
> >
> >>> How much more fundamental can you get?
> >>
> >> It is not fundamental for a low-level systems language.
> >
> > So bits are not fundamental either! But then, it has taken until
> > C23 to standardise binary literals, and there is still no format
> > code for binary output.
> >
>
> Very few programmers are at all interested in bits. A "double" holds
> a floating point value, not a pattern of bits. You are thinking on a
> level of abstraction that is not realistic for most programming tasks.
>
> >>>> But the people who write those are few, and they know what
> >>>> they are doing.)
> >>>
> >>> And I don't? I used to write FP emulation routines...
> >>>
> >>
> >> The thing you always seem to forget, is that your languages are
> >> written for /you/ - no one else. It doesn't make a difference
> >> whether something is added /to/ the language or written in code
> >> /for/ the language. You think other languages are missing
> >> critical features simply because there is a thing that /you/ want
> >> to do that you added to your own language. And you think other
> >> languages are overly complex or bloated because they have features
> >> that you don't want to use.
> >
> > They frequently have advanced features while ignoring the basics.
>
> No - they frequently have features that /you/ call "advanced" because
> you don't need or want them, and they ignore things that /you/ call
> "basics" because you /do/ need or want them. It's all about /you/.
>
> >
> >> Imagine asking the regulars in this group what features or changes
> >> they would like C to have in order to make C "perfect" for their
> >> uses, regardless of everyone else, all existing code, all existing
> >> tools. We could all fill pages with ideas. And if those were all
> >> added to C, the result would be a language that made C++ look as
> >> easy as Logo, while being riddled with inconsistencies and
> >> contradictions.
> >
> > Yes, that's the trick. That's why a lot of features I've played
> > with have disappeared, while some have proved indispensable.
> >
> >>> As it is, somebody using C as an intermediate language can have a
> >>> situation where something is well-defined in their source
> >>> language, known to be well-defined on their platforms of
> >>> interest, but inbetween, C says otherwise.)
> >>
> >> You've never really understood how languages are defined, have
> >> you? With your own languages and tools, you don't have to - there
> >> is no need for standards, specifications, or anything like that.
> >> You can just make up what suits you at the time. The language is
> >> "defined" by what the implementation does. That's been very
> >> convenient for you, but it has left you with serious
> >> misconceptions about how non-personal languages work.
> >
> > Here's a program in a very simple language, where all variables
> > have i64 type:
> >
> > c = a + b
> >
> > Here, the author has decreed that any overflow in this addition
> > will wrap (any overflow bits above 64 are lost). If directly
> > compiled to x64 code it might use this (here 'a b c' are aliases
> > for the registers where they reside):
> >
> > mov c, a
> > add c, b
> >
> > Or on ARM64:
> >
> > add c, a, b
> >
> > Now, the author decides to use intermediate C (for portability, for
> > optimisations etc), and will generate perhaps:
> >
> > int64_t a, b, c;
> > ...
> > c = a + b;
> >
> > But here, if a + b happens to overflow, it is UB, and for no good
> > reason. You have to fix it. This is where it can be harder to
> > generate HLL code than assembly!
> >
>
> You are talking nonsense.
>
> Either a + b results in the correct answer, or it does not. Any sane
> person reads that as "a plus b" - mathematically adding two integers
> to get their sum. That's what the programmer wants, and that's what
> they ask for. And any sane programmer expects the language to give
> the correct result within its limitations, but doe not expect it to
> do magic. Expecting to form a sum that is greater than 2 ^ 63 and
> somehow produce the "correct" result is a total misunderstanding of
> mathematics and programming - any primary school kid will tell you
> that using the fingers of one hand, you can't add 3 and 4. They will
> /not/ tell you that it's fine to add them on one hand because 3 + 4
> is actually equal to 2.
>
> > *Now* do you understand? This is nothing to do with me or my
> > personal languages, it is a problem for every language that
> > transpiles to C, where there is a mismatch between the sets of
> > behaviour considered UB in each.
>
> I understand that simple maths and common sense is beyond you. I
> understand that you think mathematics should be defined in terms of
> accidental byproducts of the way hardware logic designs happen to be
> implemented.
>
> >
> >>> OK, so how would you do a 'reinterpret' cast in C, of a value
> >>> like 'x+y'?
> >>
> >> As you know, you use a union. So just to please you, here is your
> >> bit extraction - written as a one-line function (split over two
> >> lines for Usenet) because you seem to think that kind of thing is
> >> important :
> >>
> >> uint64_t get_exponent(double x) {
> >> return ((union { double d; uint64_t u;}) { x }.u >> 52)
> >> & ((1ull << (62 - 52 + 1)) - 1);
> >> }
> >>
> >> That compiles (with gcc on x86-64) to :
> >>
> >> movq rax, xmm0
> >> shr rax, 52
> >> and eax, 2047
> >> ret
> >>
> >> There's nothing in C that suggests this must be put in memory or
> >> do anything more than this.
> >
> > (This only seems to work with gcc. Clang and MSVS don't like it.)
> >
>
> I think you are mistaken. clang is fine with it. It is standard
> C99, so any decent C compiler from the last 25 years will handle it
> fine. MS gave up on bothering to make C compilers before the turn of
> the century (they make a reasonable enough C++ compiler). Even your
> hero tcc is fine with it (though on my attempts, it produces rubbish
> code - maybe it needs different flags for optimisation). The C code
> is not made invalid by the existence of C90-only compilers.
>
MSVC compilers compile your code and produce correct result, but the
code
looks less nice:
0000000000000000 <get_exponent>:
0: f2 0f 11 44 24 08 movsd %xmm0,0x8(%rsp)
6: 48 8b 44 24 08 mov 0x8(%rsp),%rax
b: 48 c1 e8 34 shr $0x34,%rax
f: 25 ff 07 00 00 and $0x7ff,%eax
14: c3 ret
Although on old AMD processors it is likely faster than nicer code
generated by gcc and clang. On newer processor gcc code is likely a bit
better, but the difference is unlikely to be detected by simple
measurements.
Also MSVC compiler does not like your style and produces following
warning:
dave_b.c(5): warning C4116: unnamed type definition in parentheses
BTW, I don't like your style either. My preferred code will look
very similar to the code of Waldek Hebisch except that I'd declare
d_to_u() static.
I don't like union trick. Not just in this particular context, but
generally. memcpy() much cleaner in expressing programmer's intentions.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
_BitInt(N) Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 09:45 -0300
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 11:42 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:23 -0300
Re: _BitInt(N) Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:25 -0300
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-10-22 14:03 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-23 12:46 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-23 13:32 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-23 13:59 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-23 17:06 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 10:29 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 11:17 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 05:12 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 14:49 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-25 07:56 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-29 19:36 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 11:56 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-30 15:50 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 05:06 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-24 15:27 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 14:51 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-29 22:06 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:10 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 17:32 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-30 11:46 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 11:12 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-23 17:55 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:38 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 00:30 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 12:17 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-24 13:44 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 15:02 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 12:31 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 05:33 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 14:41 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:46 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 15:41 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 18:35 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 21:26 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 22:27 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:10 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-25 21:25 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-25 21:58 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:20 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 02:08 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:06 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 11:52 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 13:15 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 15:08 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:21 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-29 22:40 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-29 22:04 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 08:55 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 12:05 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 15:49 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 15:44 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 18:42 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 21:43 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-27 02:32 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 12:46 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-27 14:39 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-27 11:43 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 12:20 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-27 14:02 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-27 16:02 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-27 21:15 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-28 00:15 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-28 09:46 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-28 13:12 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-28 12:45 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-28 15:33 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-28 15:47 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-29 19:23 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-29 00:20 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-29 19:30 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 13:09 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 22:43 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 17:13 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-11-27 17:38 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 17:59 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-28 03:33 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 11:49 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 14:46 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 15:23 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-29 00:08 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-29 03:12 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 19:38 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-29 11:24 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-29 14:45 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-29 14:40 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-29 17:15 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-29 10:27 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:29 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-29 22:08 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-20 11:24 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-21 00:18 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-21 23:07 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-22 02:51 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-22 19:23 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-07 03:01 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-20 18:22 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 21:57 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-20 21:27 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 21:51 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-21 02:27 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-21 22:48 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-29 03:26 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-29 03:32 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-29 12:24 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-28 09:48 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-28 11:41 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 19:46 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-28 21:58 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 15:59 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 00:11 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 16:39 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-28 01:49 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:36 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 17:58 -0800
[meta] Newsreader and formatting (was Re: _BitInt(N)) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-28 02:56 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-01 14:59 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 14:18 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 12:06 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-01 23:59 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-02 08:31 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-12-02 12:14 +0100
[OT] Keyboard layout (was Re: _BitInt(N)) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 14:01 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:33 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-12-03 09:23 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-03 08:29 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 02:16 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 11:01 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 14:19 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-21 22:24 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-02 12:21 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-02 13:45 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 14:15 +0100
Block syntax (was Re: _BitInt(N)) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-02 14:12 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 13:53 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-02 19:55 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-02 19:37 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-02 21:07 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-11-27 08:10 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-27 01:30 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 02:18 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-27 04:12 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-29 20:24 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-29 22:58 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 16:46 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 02:30 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-30 05:31 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 12:51 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-30 18:17 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 17:55 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-01 00:08 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 01:14 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-01 04:10 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 14:41 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 16:24 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 17:19 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 19:33 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 20:14 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-12-02 01:04 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 18:21 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 12:34 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 22:01 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 15:01 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 11:33 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 11:29 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 14:10 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:56 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 19:38 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 12:42 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-12-02 22:17 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-03 09:25 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-12-03 06:17 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:07 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 08:19 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 08:21 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 18:05 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 20:32 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-30 12:22 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 11:41 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 12:28 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 13:35 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 15:14 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 12:09 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:03 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-25 11:38 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-25 14:12 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-25 14:57 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-25 18:29 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-25 18:33 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 11:12 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-26 12:45 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 15:31 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 11:29 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-26 21:19 -0500
Re: _BitInt(N) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-12-15 08:29 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-25 21:54 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:42 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 15:08 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-26 13:24 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-25 23:11 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 17:04 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-27 01:05 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-27 02:54 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-29 22:17 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-29 22:41 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 00:17 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 11:00 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-30 11:05 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 10:51 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 13:10 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-30 15:26 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-30 15:09 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 17:26 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-30 21:53 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-30 17:32 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 08:36 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 11:37 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 14:37 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-12-01 14:14 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-12-01 16:28 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-30 12:39 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-24 14:10 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 04:29 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:39 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 11:45 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-24 13:57 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 12:56 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-24 15:17 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-24 15:59 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 05:35 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-11-24 14:21 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:12 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:00 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 20:10 -0600
Re: _BitInt(N) Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2025-11-29 22:30 +0100
Re: _BitInt(N) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: _BitInt(N) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-11-30 11:22 +0200
Re: _BitInt(N) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 04:37 -0800
Re: _BitInt(N) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:52 -0600
csiph-web