Re: Baby X is bor nagain

From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date	2024-06-27 18:08 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<86y16pdgcs.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <v5eph4$1k6a9$1@dont-email.me> <87ed8jnbmf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me> <867ceadtih.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v5krsp$2v9va$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 27/06/2024 21:23, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 26/06/2024 13:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> I /do/ use Python.  I use it when it is an appropriate language to use,
>>>>>>   which is very different circumstances from when I use C (or
>>>>>> C++).  Different tools for different tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet neither of you are interested in answering my question, which was
>>>>> why its simplistic bytecode compiler is acceptable in this scenario, but
>>>>> would be considered useless if applied to C code.
>>>>
>>>> You throw out a lot of these sorts of question, by which I mean
>>>> questions that you either /do/ know the answers to or which you /should/
>>>> know the answers to.
>>>>
>>>> If a software engineering student asked me this sort of "challenge"
>>>> question it would immediately become homework:  come up with at least two
>>>> scenarios in which a simplistic C bytecode compiler would be an
>>>> unacceptable tool to use, and two in which Python with a trivial
>>>> bytecode compiler would be an acceptable tool to use.  In each case
>>>> explain why.  Anyone who could not would get marked down on the course.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you're implying here.
>>>
>>> Some here are consistently saying that any compiler whose internal
>>> processes are not at the scale or depth that you find in
>>> professional', 'industrial scale' products like gcc, clang, icc, is
>>> not worth bothering with and is basically a useless toy.
>>
>> After reading the above I decided to try tcc.  I used tcc for
>> the first time earlier today.
>>
>> First I tried using tcc for my most recent project.  That
>> didn't go anywhere, because that project relies on C11,
>> and tcc doesn't support C11.
>>
>> Next I tried using tcc on a small part of my larger current
>> project.  That test involves compiling one .c file to produce a
>> .o file, and linking with several other .o files to produce an
>> executable, and running the executable.  The .c file being
>> compiled uses C99 and doesn't need C11.
>>
>> The first thing that came up is tcc doesn't support all of
>> C99.  There are some C99 features that tcc just doesn't
>> understand.
>
> Which ones?  I thought its C99 support was far more complete than
> mine.

I didn't post to have a conversation about tcc.  I just thought
people might be interested to hear about the trial.

>> In this case the infringements were minor so I
>> edited the source to work around the missing features.
>>
>> The second thing to come up is some language incompatibilities.
>> There are language features that tcc understands, sort of,
>> but implements them in a way that didn't work with my source
>> code.  To be fair, a case could be made that what tcc does
>> conforms to the C standard.  However, the code I had before
>> works fine with gcc
>
> People develop sofware using compilers like gcc, and will naturally do
> whatever it takes to make them work with that tool.  They might
> inadvertently use extensions.

I routinely use -pedantic-errors for my compiles, and am totally
intolerant of any warning or error messages.  I very much doubt
my builds use any extensions.

>> After doing a trial run with the produced executable, I looked at
>> the tcc man page.  As best I can tell, tcc simply silently
>> ignores the -fPIC option.
>
> I think that it tries to be a drop-in replacement for gcc, so supports
> some of its options, even if they don't do anything.  Like -O3.

I would say tcc accepts the -fPIC option but does not support it.

> Position-independent code seems to be a recent thing with gcc
> tools.  My tools didn't support it either, until a year ago when I
> found out about ASLR.
>
> For most, PIC isn't a necessity.  But tcc supports shared libraries,
> and some kinds of relocation, if not full PIC, are necessary.

Support for -fPIC is a must-have for that project.  I'm not going
to spend time investigating possible partial solutions when I
already have other options available that are known to work.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 16:48 +0100
  Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-17 18:21 +0200
    Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 20:17 +0100
      Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-17 21:29 +0200
        Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 22:06 +0100
          Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 08:44 +0200
        Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-20 21:21 +0100
          Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-21 11:46 +0200
            Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-21 11:42 +0100
              Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-21 15:34 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-21 22:47 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-23 14:25 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-23 19:21 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-23 22:09 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 00:52 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 01:25 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 00:56 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 10:28 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 12:17 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 13:46 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 14:01 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-26 11:54 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 10:16 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 16:09 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 15:00 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 17:09 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 17:19 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 19:15 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 17:25 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 20:29 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 22:15 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 21:34 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 22:03 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 10:19 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 12:18 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 17:08 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-26 00:28 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:17 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-06-25 12:52 -0400
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 20:39 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 -0400
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-26 00:23 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 13:13 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:23 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 15:18 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 15:45 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:04 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:21 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-26 08:31 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-25 13:15 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 12:56 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 18:10 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 17:51 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 17:02 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 18:50 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 18:10 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 20:33 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-25 11:36 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 13:48 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 15:56 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 15:08 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 17:12 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 16:59 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 16:27 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 19:51 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 18:11 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-26 00:42 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:35 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-26 13:15 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 12:16 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-27 15:24 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 14:13 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-27 14:31 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 17:28 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-27 21:51 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 22:47 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 03:23 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:19 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 10:26 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 15:14 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-29 08:38 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 17:11 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 19:42 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-29 21:49 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:43 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-30 01:43 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:23 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-30 00:36 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-03 17:12 -0400
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-30 01:49 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-29 18:46 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 20:55 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-30 12:18 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 17:54 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-30 19:10 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-01 00:20 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-08 19:48 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 16:23 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 10:47 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 12:11 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:05 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-30 11:48 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 17:47 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-01 12:22 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-01 13:09 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-01 15:14 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 14:20 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 16:00 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 16:44 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 00:58 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 01:23 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-03 00:47 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-03 01:18 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 01:54 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-03 09:08 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 10:36 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-03 09:41 -0400
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 17:58 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 21:33 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 09:14 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 22:58 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-04 10:24 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-04 10:18 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:23 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:13 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-28 06:56 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 11:20 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:52 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 11:05 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-29 09:15 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 19:11 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-29 18:51 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-29 21:56 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:17 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:05 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-28 06:57 +0200
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 13:23 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 15:44 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 17:50 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 00:16 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-27 23:58 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 18:21 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:15 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:53 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 18:08 -0700
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 03:30 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 11:11 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:41 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:48 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 15:36 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 15:48 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 20:37 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 15:42 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 16:01 +0000
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 19:45 +0300
                tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-01 20:09 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-01 12:14 -0700
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 14:48 -0700
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 15:09 -0700
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 11:54 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 12:22 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 16:27 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 15:18 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 17:55 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 13:57 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-02 06:50 -0700
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-02 06:47 -0700
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-02 11:50 -0400
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 10:35 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-02 14:33 +0000
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 15:43 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 18:17 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 16:32 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 18:45 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 17:12 +0100
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 00:42 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-04 00:04 +0300
                Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 21:07 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-27 23:24 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-28 00:44 +0100
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 20:41 +0300
                Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 19:39 +0300
            Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-26 11:31 +0100
              Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 16:43 +0200
    Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-17 22:01 +0100
      Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 09:01 +0200
    Re: Baby X is bor nagain James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-17 19:52 -0400
      Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 11:26 +0200

csiph-web