Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #399456 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 382 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 19:53 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 18:49 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 04:53 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 02:35 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:32 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 20:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 04:57 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:35 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 05:20 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-29 13:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:16 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 13:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-30 14:40 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 16:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 15:48 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 13:25 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:14 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:22 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 03:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 12:47 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 09:56 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 11:00 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 17:12 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 14:07 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-28 23:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 10:02 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 12:19 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 14:22 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 17:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-29 15:59 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:00 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:14 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 17:05 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 18:53 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 12:28 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 20:49 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:03 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 13:56 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 22:54 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 15:52 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 20:31 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 02:03 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 19:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-30 12:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 13:56 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:37 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 19:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:16 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-31 09:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 11:49 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 11:10 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:18 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:24 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 17:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 12:46 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 22:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 18:26 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:28 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 15:54 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 08:39 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:33 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:48 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-02 06:37 -0400
Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:28 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:37 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 16:31 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 13:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 23:49 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:04 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:10 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 23:50 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 02:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 12:39 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 23:15 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 18:51 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 09:46 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:07 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-09 01:25 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-09 18:29 -0400
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:01 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 12:36 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 16:49 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 15:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 18:08 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-11 16:30 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:52 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-12 02:20 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-13 14:57 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 15:47 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 16:36 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-06 17:41 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 10:41 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 16:15 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-06 18:06 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-07 22:34 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 23:05 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 10:19 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 14:37 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 18:30 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:55 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 23:32 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:47 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 08:56 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 14:05 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 15:38 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 23:07 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:43 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 02:02 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:34 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 10:58 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-13 12:36 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:03 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:02 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-13 12:13 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-13 12:44 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-14 21:24 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-15 17:52 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-13 18:32 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-14 14:33 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-14 22:02 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 15:55 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-15 10:09 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-15 10:43 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-15 16:01 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-15 17:57 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-16 10:10 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-15 19:26 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-15 21:59 -0400
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-16 04:59 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 13:29 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 02:08 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 11:02 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:45 +0200
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-10 15:11 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 16:19 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 16:28 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-11 23:46 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 18:29 -0700
Re: Constants and undefined behavior cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-12 01:54 +0000
Re: Constants and undefined behavior David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 11:37 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:35 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 06:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 16:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:29 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 06:41 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:24 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 08:35 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 17:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-09 00:54 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-09 10:08 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 13:40 -0700
Meaning of "expression" Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 14:05 -0700
Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:17 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-09 14:53 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:30 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-09 17:13 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:34 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 09:04 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-10 11:10 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 13:29 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 03:17 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-10 13:43 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-11 09:10 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:29 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-12 12:55 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-13 15:01 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-11 20:12 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-11 15:13 -0400
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-12 00:37 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 23:05 +0000
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-12 01:18 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-11 17:41 -0700
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-11 20:41 -0400
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-06-09 19:27 +0200
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-09 19:19 +0100
Re: Expression statements (was Re: Meaning of "expression") Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 15:22 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:22 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 23:56 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-07 13:37 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 15:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 02:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-08 00:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 12:41 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-08 17:37 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-09 16:05 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 13:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 13:05 +0000
Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:38 +0100
Re: Parentheses (was: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-03 22:30 +0000
Re: Parentheses Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-03 16:24 -0700
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 02:03 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 01:12 +0100
Re: Parentheses antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-04 01:58 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 11:37 +0100
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Parentheses Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:47 +0100
Re: Parentheses Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:57 +0200
Re: Parentheses cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 14:31 +0000
[OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:54 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0100
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 17:39 +0200
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 21:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 14:43 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-02 17:08 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 19:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Fancy graphics (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-03 13:14 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:10 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 15:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-31 10:15 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 16:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 03:45 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 04:02 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 09:04 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 18:11 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 19:10 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:12 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:36 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 02:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 12:40 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 14:35 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 14:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:57 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 16:27 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 16:46 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 20:15 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 20:54 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 20:29 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:47 +0100
Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-05 00:27 +0200
Re: Famous (hopefully last) words [on this topic] Bad Post <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-05 01:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 16:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 00:44 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 17:26 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-06-05 12:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 14:27 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 00:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 11:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:34 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:45 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:44 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-06 07:39 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 09:29 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 12:39 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 15:42 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 16:50 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:09 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-05 20:29 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 17:23 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 16:47 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 19:57 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:34 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-04 22:28 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 21:58 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-06-04 23:25 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 19:47 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-04 21:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 19:13 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-05 10:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 12:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-06-04 16:33 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 14:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 18:36 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 02:54 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 05:49 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-05 11:01 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 11:53 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-06-04 18:45 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:19 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:31 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 20:41 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 20:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 00:03 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 00:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-05 03:02 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-05 14:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-06 03:49 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-06 15:13 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-06 17:53 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:59 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-04 15:21 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 06:38 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 09:52 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 02:42 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:50 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 11:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 12:55 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 14:39 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 15:11 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 08:41 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 02:07 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:38 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:01 -0700
It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:39 +0000
Re: It is not futile to change the subject line (Was: this girl calls c ugly) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:42 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 11:46 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 11:09 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 05:25 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-02 14:20 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-02 04:16 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-01 15:23 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-06-01 16:06 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 23:24 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-02 11:35 +0200
Operator precedence in other (non-C, but "C-like") languages (Was: something about a girl) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-06-02 12:36 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 11:04 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-01 14:04 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-01 18:48 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 21:04 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 09:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-02 12:07 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-06-02 14:37 +0200
Microcontroller software stacks (was Re: this girl calls c ugly) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 15:06 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 03:58 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2026-06-06 19:02 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-31 19:11 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 16:08 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-31 16:32 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 17:12 -0700
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-30 14:07 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 18:10 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 19:18 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:17 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-29 21:47 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-29 15:57 -0400
Re: this girl calls c ugly Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:18 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 01:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-30 04:25 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-30 12:01 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-31 00:29 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-31 10:59 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-01 00:33 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-06-01 02:26 +0100
Re: this girl calls c ugly David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-31 13:24 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 08:09 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 04:15 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-29 14:58 +0200
Re: this girl calls c ugly BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 01:04 -0500
Re: this girl calls c ugly Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-29 23:20 +0000
Re: this girl calls c ugly Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-30 11:18 +0200
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 18:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110emi7$1naub$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399901 |
On 2026-06-11 17:20, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <110eht5$1naub$5@dont-email.me>, > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already >>> struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation >>> could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard >>> rules to other programmers. >> >> I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience >> I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal" >> in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a >> mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is >> more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being >> formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries; >> in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's >> thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical] >> formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts. >> And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising. >> That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal >> specifications. > > One hopes that a formal specification (that's a term of art, and > implies something that's mathematically precise) would be > accompanied by a commentary for more casual reading. Commentaries generally make sense, and they are one possibility to serve the needs also of programmers. But a more formal text would also help the authors of textbooks to provide a clearer description for those programmers that are repelled by standards papers. > However, > the truly precise, formal specification would be considered > definitive. Yes. (That's what I intended to express.) > > I think the odds of this ever happening for C are slim to none, > but it would be useful. I agree. (And I don't wait for that; I'm taking "C" as it is.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 16:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110enrj$15fs1$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #399900 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2026-06-09 03:25, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Interesting views. - Thanks.
>
>>
>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already
>> struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation
>> could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard
>> rules to other programmers.
>
> I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience
> I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal"
> in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a
> mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is
> more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being
> formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries;
> in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's
> thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical]
> formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts.
> And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising.
> That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal
> specifications.
You sniped most of what I wrote. I certainly would prefer standard
that is less lawyerish and more mathematical, say written in similar
way to Pascal standard. But there is a _big_ gap between normal
mathematical text and a formal mathematical text (and let me note that
Pascal standard is less formal than normal mathematics). Normal
mathematical text depends on human understanding to disambiguate
and bridge small inconsistencies. Formal one has parts which
are there only because authors were not able to avoid
ambiguity in simpler way. And once things are written in a way
that is well fit to formalizm they tend to be much less
understandable to uninitiated.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-11 20:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110f05e$1nauc$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399905 |
On 2026-06-11 18:30, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-06-09 03:25, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>> [...] >> >> Interesting views. - Thanks. >> >>> >>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already >>> struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation >>> could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard >>> rules to other programmers. >> >> I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience >> I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal" >> in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a >> mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is >> more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being >> formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries; >> in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's >> thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical] >> formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts. >> And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising. >> That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal >> specifications. > > You sniped most of what I wrote. Yes, because I acknowledged it by my above on-line remark already (and I didn't want to waste space unnecessarily). (No offense!) I intended to comment just on the one paragraph above, with its assumption that it may be an inherent problem to programmers. To elaborate only a bit more... There's folks who have problems with "lawyer's speech" standards. There's folks who have problems with formal mathematical standards. But, as to my observation, there's *no* strict or natural hierarchy that one would imply the other. You said: "They already struggle with current standard text." as if there would be a strict "one implies the other" fact; there isn't one, or to be more cautious, "there isn't necessarily one". (I used the wording "necessarily" already in my original comment.) > I certainly would prefer standard > that is less lawyerish and more mathematical, say written in similar > way to Pascal standard. But there is a _big_ gap between normal > mathematical text and a formal mathematical text (and let me note that > Pascal standard is less formal than normal mathematics). I agree. > Normal > mathematical text depends on human understanding to disambiguate > and bridge small inconsistencies. Formal one has parts which > are there only because authors were not able to avoid > ambiguity in simpler way. And once things are written in a way > that is well fit to formalizm they tend to be much less > understandable to uninitiated. (I'll leave that uncommented. - I've said all I intended to say.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-12 02:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110fqco$1ck3s$3@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #399909 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2026-06-11 18:30, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-09 03:25, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Interesting views. - Thanks.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already
>>>> struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation
>>>> could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard
>>>> rules to other programmers.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience
>>> I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal"
>>> in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a
>>> mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is
>>> more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being
>>> formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries;
>>> in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's
>>> thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical]
>>> formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts.
>>> And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising.
>>> That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal
>>> specifications.
>>
>> You sniped most of what I wrote.
>
> Yes, because I acknowledged it by my above on-line remark already
> (and I didn't want to waste space unnecessarily). (No offense!)
>
> I intended to comment just on the one paragraph above, with its
> assumption that it may be an inherent problem to programmers.
But this paragraph was closely linked to the text above. Dan Cross
wanted formal semantics and my paragraph was responding to this.
I think that lawyerish style of current C standard is mostly inertia,
and making standard more mathematical would improve it. But giving
formal semantic in the standard would mean significantly bigger
change.
> To elaborate only a bit more...
> There's folks who have problems with "lawyer's speech" standards.
> There's folks who have problems with formal mathematical standards.
> But, as to my observation, there's *no* strict or natural hierarchy
> that one would imply the other.
>
> You said: "They already struggle with current standard text."
> as if there would be a strict "one implies the other" fact; there
> isn't one, or to be more cautious, "there isn't necessarily one".
> (I used the wording "necessarily" already in my original comment.)
>
>> I certainly would prefer standard
>> that is less lawyerish and more mathematical, say written in similar
>> way to Pascal standard. But there is a _big_ gap between normal
>> mathematical text and a formal mathematical text (and let me note that
>> Pascal standard is less formal than normal mathematics).
>
> I agree.
>
>> Normal
>> mathematical text depends on human understanding to disambiguate
>> and bridge small inconsistencies. Formal one has parts which
>> are there only because authors were not able to avoid
>> ambiguity in simpler way. And once things are written in a way
>> that is well fit to formalizm they tend to be much less
>> understandable to uninitiated.
>
> (I'll leave that uncommented. - I've said all I intended to say.)
>
> Janis
>
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-13 14:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110jk4g$2097v$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399942 |
On 2026-06-12 04:20, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-06-11 18:30, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2026-06-09 03:25, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>> >>>> Interesting views. - Thanks. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. They already >>>>> struggle with current standard text. More formal presentation >>>>> could alienate even folks who now are able to explain standard >>>>> rules to other programmers. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what "normal programmers" are. From own experience >>>> I can just say that there's a difference between what's "formal" >>>> in a "lawyer's speeches and texts" sense and what's formal in a >>>> mathematical sense. - The C-Standard as had been quoted here is >>>> more of a lawyer's text, with its inherent property of not being >>>> formally (in a mathematical sense) accurate (despite their tries; >>>> in both areas, law and programming language, respectively). It's >>>> thus not necessarily a problem if we'd have a more [mathematical] >>>> formal standard. - Programmers, as I see it, need definite texts. >>>> And rejection of the "lawyer's" sort of texts is not surprising. >>>> That not necessarily affects their acceptance will of more formal >>>> specifications. >>> >>> You sniped most of what I wrote. >> >> Yes, because I acknowledged it by my above on-line remark already >> (and I didn't want to waste space unnecessarily). (No offense!) >> >> I intended to comment just on the one paragraph above, with its >> assumption that it may be an inherent problem to programmers. > > But this paragraph was closely linked to the text above. Dan Cross > wanted formal semantics and my paragraph was responding to this. > I think that lawyerish style of current C standard is mostly inertia, > and making standard more mathematical would improve it. But giving > formal semantic in the standard would mean significantly bigger > change. Yes, you said that, and I had acknowledged that; meanwhile twice. I'm not sure why you persistently insist on any relation to your previous text when all what *I* wanted to comment on in your post was just _one aspect_ in your last paragraph, which was: >>>>> I think biggest trouble is normal programmers. >>>>> They already struggle with current standard text. And I expressed that I refute that view and I explained my view. If you think your statement about "normal programmers" (whatever you imply with "normal") is correct and my perception with people is in any way wrong we can discuss that. (On your other text I see nothing that we'd need to discuss.) Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 15:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <86v7bv9thw.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399731 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > I claim that an expression that looks like a constant expression > *isn't* a constant-expression if it doesn't appear in a context > that requires a constant-expression. Right. This question came up years ago in a Defect Report. The response from the Committee was basically the same as what you said: the 6.6 constraints for constant expressions apply only in situations where the C standard expressly requires a constant expression. (I don't have the DR in front of me; I'm summarizing based on memory, but am confident the actual wording is consistent with what I just said.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 16:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <1102ate$25nse$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399772 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> I claim that an expression that looks like a constant expression
>> *isn't* a constant-expression if it doesn't appear in a context
>> that requires a constant-expression.
>
> Right. This question came up years ago in a Defect Report. The
> response from the Committee was basically the same as what you
> said: the 6.6 constraints for constant expressions apply only in
> situations where the C standard expressly requires a constant
> expression. (I don't have the DR in front of me; I'm summarizing
> based on memory, but am confident the actual wording is consistent
> with what I just said.)
C99 DR 261 looks similar to what you're talking about.
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_261.htm
The Committee Response section says:
In general, the interpretation of an expression for constantness
is context sensitive. For any expression which contains only
constants:
- If the syntax or context only permits a constant expression, the
constraints of 6.6#3 and 6.6#4 shall apply.
- Otherwise, if the expression meets the requirements of 6.6
(including any form accepted in accordance with 6.6#10), it is a
constant expression.
- Otherwise it is not a constant expression.
That's close to what I claimed, but the second bullet point differs.
My claim was that, given:
n = 2+2;
2+2 is not a constant expression because the grammar doesn't require
a constant expression in that context. The Committee's opinion
(at least at the time) was that it is a constant expression because
it meets the requirements of 6.6.
But I *think* it's a distinction without a difference. Calling 2+2
a constant expression has no effect on the semantics, and does not
require or forbid the implementation from, for example, generating
an ADD instruction. The distinction would matter for an expression
that has UB and/or does not yield a value of the type, but that
falls through to the third bullet.
I found another interesting tidbit, C90 DR 031, relevant to another
point I made elsethread:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_031.html
case (INT_MAX*4)/4: is a constraint violation.
When subclause 6.4 says on page 55, lines 11-12:
Each constant expression shall evaluate to a constant that is in
the range of representable values for its type.
the Committee's judgement of the intent is that the
``representable'' requirement applies to each subexpression of a
constant expression, as shown in the third example. A constant
expression is meant as defined by the syntax rules.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 16:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <86mrx79qva.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399776 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I claim that an expression that looks like a constant expression >>> *isn't* a constant-expression if it doesn't appear in a context >>> that requires a constant-expression. >> >> Right. This question came up years ago in a Defect Report. The >> response from the Committee was basically the same as what you >> said: the 6.6 constraints for constant expressions apply only in >> situations where the C standard expressly requires a constant >> expression. (I don't have the DR in front of me; I'm summarizing >> based on memory, but am confident the actual wording is consistent >> with what I just said.) > > C99 DR 261 looks similar to what you're talking about. > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_261.htm > > The Committee Response section says: > > In general, the interpretation of an expression for constantness > is context sensitive. For any expression which contains only > constants: > > - If the syntax or context only permits a constant expression, the > constraints of 6.6#3 and 6.6#4 shall apply. > - Otherwise, if the expression meets the requirements of 6.6 > (including any form accepted in accordance with 6.6#10), it is a > constant expression. > - Otherwise it is not a constant expression. > > That's close to what I claimed, but the second bullet point differs. > My claim was that, given: > > n = 2+2; > > 2+2 is not a constant expression because the grammar doesn't require > a constant expression in that context. The Committee's opinion > (at least at the time) was that it is a constant expression because > it meets the requirements of 6.6. > > But I *think* it's a distinction without a difference. [...] Right. The key point is that the constraints need to be satisfied only in situations where the C standard expressly requires a constant expression. Whether a given expression is called a "constant expression" doesn't matter; all that does matter is whether the constraints need to be satisfied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 17:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <1102enu$26qtr$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399777 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> That's close to what I claimed, but the second bullet point differs.
>> My claim was that, given:
>>
>> n = 2+2;
>>
>> 2+2 is not a constant expression because the grammar doesn't require
>> a constant expression in that context. The Committee's opinion
>> (at least at the time) was that it is a constant expression because
>> it meets the requirements of 6.6.
>>
>> But I *think* it's a distinction without a difference. [...]
>
> Right. The key point is that the constraints need to be satisfied
> only in situations where the C standard expressly requires a
> constant expression. Whether a given expression is called a
> "constant expression" doesn't matter; all that does matter is
> whether the constraints need to be satisfied.
Well, it matters a little bit, at least to me, even though the
distinction doesn't seem to affect the validity or semantics of
any C code.
A clear and unambiguous definition of what is or is not a "constant
expression" would make the language just a bit easier to understand
and explain. I'd even be satisified with the definition given in
the DR *if* it were clearly expressed in the standard.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 10:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <10vu236$fm4o$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #399725 |
On 2026-06-05 01:49, Dan Cross wrote: >> [...] > [...] > [ ... (INT_MAX+1)*0 ] > Furthermore, the expression above is obviously an integer > constant expression as defined by sec 6.6 para 8. Section 6.6, > para 4, reads in part, "Each constant expression shall evaluate > to a constant that is in the range of representable values for > its type." The expression, `(INT_MAX+1)*0` violates this > constraint, and so therefore a diagnostic is mandated as per > sec 5.1.1.3 para 1. That it appears in code that is not > obviously called from `main` doesn't change that. I'm curious about that "violation"; a violation would require (at least) two sorts of logical preconditions. - The first is that all *sequentially* (literally) evaluated sub-expression values are representable as value - INT_MAX+1 certainly can't be represented in generated code that conforms to the abstract *mathematical* value - but is that necessary if _the whole_ expression is (mathematically) just 0 (because of the final factor). And the second (related) is whether the order of the sub-expression evaluation is relevant; if we'd assume the expression evaluation to be considered from right to left then it would be irrelevant what's inside the parenthesis. From the standard quotes I cannot really recognize that these preconditions, how to determine UB/errors/violations, would be necessary. I'm no native speaker and I fear my question as formulated was hard to understand. It's basically the question of the standard implying (INT_MAX+1)*0 to be analyzed sequentially as written or whether it could as well analyze it from right to left and thus recognizing no problem, since from the mathematical view - but also practically - a concrete representable value of a here irrelevant sub-expression isn't necessary. Or another try of a (paraphrased) formulation; for the determination of constraint violations does the expression have strict (sort of) sequencing points _after each term_ (and each left-to-right sub-expression has to be well-defined) or can it be valued/analyzed as a whole not putting any preconditions about evaluation order etc. when determining the overall value? Janis PS: One yet non-considered question that was part of my original post was: "Is there any rationale from the _software designer_'s perspective?" > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-05 10:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <10vv27c$1aoa2$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399741 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 2026-06-05 01:49, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> [...]
>> [...]
>
>> [ ... (INT_MAX+1)*0 ]
>
>> Furthermore, the expression above is obviously an integer
>> constant expression as defined by sec 6.6 para 8. Section 6.6,
>> para 4, reads in part, "Each constant expression shall evaluate
>> to a constant that is in the range of representable values for
>> its type." The expression, `(INT_MAX+1)*0` violates this
>> constraint, and so therefore a diagnostic is mandated as per
>> sec 5.1.1.3 para 1. That it appears in code that is not
>> obviously called from `main` doesn't change that.
>
> I'm curious about that "violation"; a violation would require
> (at least) two sorts of logical preconditions. - The first is
> that all *sequentially* (literally) evaluated sub-expression
> values are representable as value - INT_MAX+1 certainly can't
> be represented in generated code that conforms to the abstract
> *mathematical* value - but is that necessary if _the whole_
> expression is (mathematically) just 0 (because of the final
> factor). And the second (related) is whether the order of the
> sub-expression evaluation is relevant; if we'd assume the
> expression evaluation to be considered from right to left then
> it would be irrelevant what's inside the parenthesis.
If the expression were evaluated right to left, it would still
compute INT_MAX+1, which is UB.
Let's look at an example where it's not in a context that requires a
constant expression:
int n;
n = (INT_MAX+1)*0;
In the abstract machine, the RHS is evaluated by adding INT_MAX
and 1 (which overflows, UB) and then multiplying the result by 0.
A compiler is allowed, but not required, to reduce the assignment to
`n = 0;`. If it does so, then no overflow occurs at run time --
but the definedness of the behavior is determined independent of
any optimizations. The C standard does not require any particular
behavior. It can set n to 0 because that's a valid consequence
of UB.
Let's take an example where it's definitely in a context that
requires an integer constant expression:
switch (0) {
case (INT_MAX+1)*0:
break;
}
The wording in 6.6 (Constant expressions) is slightly vague.
For example, I would assume that any subexpression of a constant
expression must be a constant expression, but it doesn't actually
say so.
But since, in the abstract machine, (INT_MAX+1)*0 doesn't yield
any defined value, I'd say it violates the constraint that "Each
constant expression shall evaluate to a constant that is in the
range of representable values for its type".
The alternative would be for to be a constant expression for
implementations that are able to recognize that anything multiplied
by zero is zero (analysis that compilers aren't required to perform),
and not for others.
On the other hand, "An implementation may accept other forms of
constant expressions; however, it is implementation-defined whether
they are an integer constant expression." That probably allows,
but does not reuqire, an implementation to treat (INT_MAX+1)*0 as
a constant expression with the value 0.
> From the standard quotes I cannot really recognize that these
> preconditions, how to determine UB/errors/violations, would be
> necessary.
>
> I'm no native speaker and I fear my question as formulated was
> hard to understand. It's basically the question of the standard
> implying (INT_MAX+1)*0 to be analyzed sequentially as written
> or whether it could as well analyze it from right to left and
> thus recognizing no problem, since from the mathematical view -
> but also practically - a concrete representable value of a here
> irrelevant sub-expression isn't necessary. Or another try of a
> (paraphrased) formulation; for the determination of constraint
> violations does the expression have strict (sort of) sequencing
> points _after each term_ (and each left-to-right sub-expression
> has to be well-defined) or can it be valued/analyzed as a whole
> not putting any preconditions about evaluation order etc. when
> determining the overall value?
>
> PS: One yet non-considered question that was part of my original
> post was: "Is there any rationale from the _software designer_'s
> perspective?"
From a programmer's perspective, it's good to have consistent
rules rather than leaving the decision of whether an expression
is a constant expression up to the undocumented vagaries of how
clever a compiler happens to be.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 16:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <86qzmj9s7a.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399741 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> PS: One yet non-considered question that was part of my original
> post was: "Is there any rationale from the _software designer_'s
> perspective?"
I didn't respond to your original question because it was based on a
misconception. Whether a given expression is a constant expression,
in the sense of needing to satisfy the constraints of 6.6, depends
not on the form of the expression but on the context in which it
appears. The 6.6 constraints apply only in situations where the C
standard expressly requires a constant expression. Other cases,
such as a use like this
int
whatever(){
int r = (int)(-1u/2) + 1;
return r;
}
do not need to satisfy the 6.6 constraints, because the C standard
doesn't require a constant expression in that context. (Note that
the initializing expression for 'r' does overflow the range of int
in implementations where UINT_MAX == INT_MAX*2.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-06 18:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <86ik7v9n1e.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399710 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>
>> In article <865x3yd21n.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <86ik81cfk5.fsf_-_@linuxsc.com>,
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> There's an important distinction to make here. Consider this
>>>>> program:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <limits.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> int
>>>>> foo(){
>>>>> int zero = (INT_MAX+1)*0;
>>>>> return zero;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int
>>>>> main(){
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> This program does not transgress the bounds of undefined behavior.
>>>
>>> To clarify, the comments in my posting were meant to be read as
>>> saying the given text is the entire program, and that it is strictly
>>> conforming with respect to conforming hosted implementations.
>>> (Incidentally, given the rules for freestanding implementations, I'm
>>> not sure that it is even possible for any program to be strictly
>>> conforming with respect to conforming freestanding implementations.
>>> In any case my statements were meant only in the context of hosted
>>> implementations.)
[...]
> foo() has undefined behavior if it's called, so replacing its
> body with trapping code is valid.
Right.
> But (I'm reasonably sure that)
> an implementation cannot reject a program just because it can't
> prove that it has no undefined behavior during execution. [...]
Right.
>> In your example, `foo` clearly exhibits UB; I think your
>> argument is whether that has a realized effect or not, since the
>> UB is not invoked. I'm saying that in general a compiler cannot
>> possibly know that when it compiles `foo`, and is free to assume
>> the worst.
>
> foo() exhibits UB if and only if it's called during execution.
Right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-07 22:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <867bo9a937.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399779 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: [...] >> But (I'm reasonably sure that) >> an implementation cannot reject a program just because it can't >> prove that it has no undefined behavior during execution. [...] > > Right. Expanding on that, there is no requirement even to try to prove such a conjecture. An implementation could simply give a warning like "there may be undiagnosed constraint violations in this compilation", and accept the TU no matter what (except of course for the dreaded #error preprocessing directive, which if encountered in a live portion of the translation must result in a rejection). I presume none of what I'm saying here is news to the usual suspects; mostly I'm saying it just to remind myself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-08 23:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <86tsrc8d0b.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #399693 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
> In article <865x3yd21n.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>>
>>> In article <86ik81cfk5.fsf_-_@linuxsc.com>,
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-06-01 00:54, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, a compiler can reduce (a + b) * 0 to just 0. But it's not
>>>>>> required to do so, and (INT_MAX + 1) * 0 still has undefined
>>>>>> behavior. Undefined behavior is determined by the rules of the
>>>>>> abstract machine *without* any adjustments permitted by the as-if
>>>>>> rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is something I really don't get in the actual C-logic...
>>>>>
>>>>> Using constants that can be determined at compile time is UB here,
>>>>> despite the '* 0' mathematically indicating an IMO clear semantics,
>>>>> but using variables is only UB possibly at runtime? [...]
>>>>
>>>> There's an important distinction to make here. Consider this
>>>> program:
>>>>
>>>> #include <limits.h>
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> foo(){
>>>> int zero = (INT_MAX+1)*0;
>>>> return zero;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int
>>>> main(){
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This program does not transgress the bounds of undefined behavior.
>>
>> To clarify, the comments in my posting were meant to be read as
>> saying the given text is the entire program, and that it is strictly
>> conforming with respect to conforming hosted implementations.
>> (Incidentally, given the rules for freestanding implementations, I'm
>> not sure that it is even possible for any program to be strictly
>> conforming with respect to conforming freestanding implementations.
>> In any case my statements were meant only in the context of hosted
>> implementations.)
>
> Ok.
>
>>> [snip]
>>> Perhaps you mean that this is irrelevant because `foo` is not
>>> invoked, but I see no reason why that need be the case in e.g.
>>> a freestanding environment.
>>
>> I explained the context of my previous statements above. Sorry for
>> not saying that in the original message.
>>
>>> In a hosted environment, I don't
>>> think anything explicitly prevents `foo` from being called after
>>> `main` returns (though I can't imagine that would happen in real
>>> life; it would be weird if it did).
>>
>> The semantics described in the ISO C standard don't admit that
>> possibility.
I have read through much of what has been said in the subthread
following this posting. I expect I will not be responding to much
of it; my overall sense is that the discussion is mostly confused.
I would like to say one thing here, and see if that helps things.
> Could you please point to where it says this, in the C standard?
>
> I cannot find anything that says that arbitrary code cannot run
> after `main()` returns, and I don't see how that could possibly
> be true.
The logic here is backwards. The C standard is prescriptive: it
says what _does_ happen, not what _doesn't_ happen. If one wants
to establish that some "action" takes place, it is necessary to
find a passage, or passages, in the C standard that, if all are
taken together, shows that the "action" occurs, or at least that it
can occur. The C standard doesn't need to say that, for example, a
function x() other than main(), whose name is never referenced,
will never be called. If someone wants to establish that x() could
be called, there needs to be a chain of reasoning going through the
semantic descriptions given in the C standard, to show that a call
to x() could occur. If there is no such chain of reasoning, naming
the pertinent passages in the C standard, to establish a possible
call, then there is no possible call. In other words the burden of
proof for a claim that some action could occur rests on whoever is
making the claim; there is no need to look for something in the C
standard that says something cannot occur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 10:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <1108pb9$omm$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #399805 |
In article <86tsrc8d0b.fsf@linuxsc.com>,
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>[snip]
>> I cannot find anything that says that arbitrary code cannot run
>> after `main()` returns, and I don't see how that could possibly
>> be true.
>
>The logic here is backwards. The C standard is prescriptive: it
>says what _does_ happen, not what _doesn't_ happen.
The definition of undefined behavior in the standard says that
it _imposes no requirements._ It is explicit that it says it
mandates neither "what _does_ happen" nor "what _doesn't_
happen."
>If one wants
>to establish that some "action" takes place, it is necessary to
>find a passage, or passages, in the C standard that, if all are
>taken together, shows that the "action" occurs, or at least that it
>can occur.
So you're saying that the proverbial nasal demons quip about UB
is incorrect, since it's not proscribed by the standard. Thanks
for clarfiying that.
>The C standard doesn't need to say that, for example, a
>function x() other than main(), whose name is never referenced,
>will never be called. If someone wants to establish that x() could
>be called, there needs to be a chain of reasoning going through the
>semantic descriptions given in the C standard, to show that a call
>to x() could occur.
Actually, no, a reference to a function is not necessary. A
couple of years ago, a well-publicized issue in a C++ compiler a
couple of years ago was something along the lines of this:
```
#include <stdio.h>
void foo(void);
int
main(void)
{
for (;;);
}
void
foo(void)
{
printf("never called\n");
}
```
The result of which, when run, was to print the text "never
called" and exit. That compiler was conformant with the text
of the standard.
>If there is no such chain of reasoning, naming
>the pertinent passages in the C standard, to establish a possible
>call, then there is no possible call. In other words the burden of
>proof for a claim that some action could occur rests on whoever is
>making the claim; there is no need to look for something in the C
>standard that says something cannot occur.
See above.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-09 15:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110a34q$b2kq$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399815 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
[...]
> Actually, no, a reference to a function is not necessary. A
> couple of years ago, a well-publicized issue in a C++ compiler a
> couple of years ago was something along the lines of this:
>
> ```
> #include <stdio.h>
> void foo(void);
> int
> main(void)
> {
> for (;;);
> }
>
> void
> foo(void)
> {
> printf("never called\n");
> }
> ```
>
> The result of which, when run, was to print the text "never
> called" and exit. That compiler was conformant with the text
> of the standard.
[...]
That doesn't make sense to me. Do you have a citation to this incident,
and is it relevant to C?
There is a special rule in C about implementations being allowed
to assume that an infinite loop terminates (N3220 6.8.6.1p4),
but (a) it wouldn't apply to this case, and (b) even if it did,
it wouldn't imply that an implicit call to foo would be permitted.
I can imagine an argument that the program has undefined behavior
and therefore it could print "never called" or "nasal demons",
but I'd have to see the argument.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 14:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110bsqd$9ab$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #399831 |
In article <110a34q$b2kq$2@kst.eternal-september.org>,
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
>[...]
>> Actually, no, a reference to a function is not necessary. A
>> couple of years ago, a well-publicized issue in a C++ compiler a
>> couple of years ago was something along the lines of this:
>>
>> ```
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> void foo(void);
>> int
>> main(void)
>> {
>> for (;;);
>> }
>>
>> void
>> foo(void)
>> {
>> printf("never called\n");
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> The result of which, when run, was to print the text "never
>> called" and exit. That compiler was conformant with the text
>> of the standard.
>[...]
>
>That doesn't make sense to me. Do you have a citation to this incident,
Yes: https://godbolt.org/z/d1WP4KP99
There was such an outcry when this was discovered that the C++
standard was modified to add a note explicitly allowing,
"trivial infinite loops, which cannot be removed or reordered."
https://eel.is/c++draft/intro.progress
That change is commit 29fcc1c1fab7277d96bbd2ccd37b0c14dfd75a0e
(https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/commit/29fcc1c1fab7277d96bbd2ccd37b0c14dfd75a0e)
in response to P2809:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2809r3.html
>and is it relevant to C?
Here's a C version with the same behavior:
```
term% cat weird.c
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(void)
{
for (unsigned int k = 0; k != 1; k += 2)
;
return 0;
}
void
hello(void)
{
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
term% clang --version
clang version 22.1.6
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /usr/bin
term% clang -Wall -pedantic -O1 -std=c23 -o weird weird.c
term% ./weird
Hello, World!
term%
```
>There is a special rule in C about implementations being allowed
>to assume that an infinite loop terminates (N3220 6.8.6.1p4),
The program above meets the criteria in sec 6.8.6.1 para 4 that
allows an implementation to assume that the loop terminates.
Godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/q46o5cYGM
>but (a) it wouldn't apply to this case, and (b) even if it did,
>it wouldn't imply that an implicit call to foo would be permitted.
>I can imagine an argument that the program has undefined behavior
>and therefore it could print "never called" or "nasal demons",
>but I'd have to see the argument.
Regehr aluded to this with his taxonomy of undefined functions.
For a function that is always undefined (a "Type 3" function), a
compiler is under no obligation to even produce a return
instruction for it, and the behavior of a call to such a
function is totally undefined. Nothing stops it from cascading
into whatever the linker happens to put after it.
Therefore, given UB, it is not necessary to have a reference to
some function in a program's source text in order for it to be
executed.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 18:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110cagt$f7e$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #399864 |
In article <110bsqd$9ab$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <110a34q$b2kq$2@kst.eternal-september.org>,
>[snip]
>Here's a C version with the same behavior:
>
>```
>term% cat weird.c
>#include <stdio.h>
>
>int
>main(void)
>{
> for (unsigned int k = 0; k != 1; k += 2)
> ;
> return 0;
>}
>
>void
>hello(void)
>{
> printf("Hello, World!\n");
>}
>term% clang --version
>clang version 22.1.6
>Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
>Thread model: posix
>InstalledDir: /usr/bin
>term% clang -Wall -pedantic -O1 -std=c23 -o weird weird.c
>term% ./weird
>Hello, World!
>term%
>```
Replying to myself here, but...this is another example of weird
behavior:
```
term% cat boo.c
#include <limits.h>
int
monstartup(void)
{
return INT_MAX + 1;
}
int
main(void)
{
return 0;
}
term% clang --version | sed 1q
FreeBSD clang version 19.1.7 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git llvmorg-19.1.7-0-gcd708029e0b2)
term% clang -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -pedantic-errors -pg -fsanitize=undefined -o boo boo.c
boo.c:6:17: warning: overflow in expression; result is -2'147'483'648 with type 'int' [-Winteger-overflow]
6 | return INT_MAX + 1;
| ~~~~~~~~^~~
1 warning generated.
term% ./boo
boo.c:6:17: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 2147483647 + 1 cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior boo.c:6:17
term%
```
(I admit that I am cheating a bit, but I claim that this program
is strictly conforming.)
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-10 14:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Constants and undefined behavior |
| Message-ID | <110cmfk$116qm$3@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #399866 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
[...]
> Replying to myself here, but...this is another example of weird
> behavior:
>
> ```
> term% cat boo.c
> #include <limits.h>
>
> int
> monstartup(void)
> {
> return INT_MAX + 1;
> }
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
> return 0;
> }
[SNIP]
> (I admit that I am cheating a bit, but I claim that this program
> is strictly conforming.)
I agree that the program is strictly conforming.
I don't know the details, but I think "monstartup" is a special name,
and that the program would behave as expected if a different name
were used. Since "monstartup" is not reserved, an implementation
that visibly treats it specially is not conforming.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web