Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #384794 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-22 18:55 +0200 |
| Last post | 2024-05-25 16:05 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 542 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 18:55 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 14:42 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 22:11 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 17:26 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 14:17 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 09:38 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-23 17:08 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:06 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:11 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 13:21 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 14:49 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 11:03 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 14:17 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:45 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 17:06 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 13:19 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 21:27 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 17:46 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 08:33 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 16:51 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:34 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 13:05 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 08:19 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 17:14 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 02:09 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 15:01 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 15:53 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 22:21 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-23 13:11 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 09:43 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 16:19 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:25 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 13:06 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 15:45 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 18:29 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 13:11 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 15:58 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 13:09 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 12:51 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 16:18 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 16:25 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 19:35 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 19:01 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 23:26 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 22:27 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 19:19 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 23:06 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 00:49 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 19:54 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-27 11:10 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 23:59 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-26 22:52 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 16:20 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 00:48 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-27 11:05 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 10:12 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-27 13:42 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:33 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-28 13:52 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 13:21 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 23:37 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 10:02 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 14:30 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-14 23:39 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-15 19:17 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-15 20:27 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-15 22:39 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-16 00:20 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-16 01:16 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 12:31 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-17 00:03 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-16 16:54 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-16 20:00 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-17 10:49 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-17 13:18 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-15 17:58 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-15 22:37 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-16 16:55 +0200
Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 16:48 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-17 11:42 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 17:19 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-18 04:19 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 22:39 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 15:54 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-19 09:37 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-19 10:17 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-19 13:44 +0300
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-19 11:57 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-19 13:46 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-19 18:02 +0300
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-19 07:25 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-19 10:49 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-21 07:13 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-21 13:06 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-21 22:48 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-06-21 10:15 -0400
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 02:32 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-18 04:19 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-17 11:41 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-17 14:57 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 18:57 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-18 08:12 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-18 16:14 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-17 14:21 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 19:20 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-17 22:39 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-18 12:39 +0300
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-18 11:28 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 11:12 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 17:20 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-20 06:51 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-18 09:50 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-18 13:56 +0000
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-18 17:21 +0200
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-18 19:25 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-18 19:38 +0100
Re: Hex string literals (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-21 22:49 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-28 00:20 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:59 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-28 15:42 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 13:44 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 05:36 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-28 15:53 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 00:44 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-27 01:55 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 02:48 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-27 14:03 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-28 02:45 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-28 11:30 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-29 04:17 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 06:00 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 13:58 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 17:20 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-30 02:32 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 11:09 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 13:43 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-01 01:45 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-30 14:34 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 17:08 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-30 15:48 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 18:03 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 13:55 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 16:19 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 16:28 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 16:48 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 15:04 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 17:34 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 19:03 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-31 18:36 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 22:15 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-01 01:25 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-01 11:24 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-01 05:17 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-01 15:08 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-01 17:22 -0700
objcopy -I binary etc... Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-06 14:56 +0300
Re: objcopy -I binary etc... Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-06 07:44 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-01 22:51 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-01 15:24 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-01 19:59 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 04:00 +0000
Re: Correct objcopy Usage (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 04:33 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-06-01 03:37 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-01 11:09 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-06-01 13:59 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-01 17:26 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-02 01:11 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-02 00:39 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-02 03:06 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-06 14:43 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-31 21:42 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-31 21:11 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 15:38 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-06 21:38 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 00:51 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-07 09:04 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:20 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:22 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-07 00:53 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 16:58 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-08 03:08 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 00:04 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-08 08:27 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 14:14 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 14:07 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:53 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 03:13 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 10:26 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 03:38 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-15 22:42 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:42 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-16 03:15 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-08 13:09 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-09 00:46 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 11:19 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 19:28 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 14:52 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 12:40 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-09 11:20 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 14:12 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 14:44 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-09 17:32 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 20:00 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-09 21:06 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-09 23:40 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-09 22:49 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-10 01:06 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-10 01:26 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-11 08:33 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:12 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-09 00:45 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 22:17 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-01 21:11 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-01 17:47 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-31 15:03 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-31 15:34 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 20:31 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 01:53 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-01 11:53 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:51 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-31 09:24 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 13:39 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-31 13:31 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 17:51 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-01 01:39 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-01 11:37 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-02 03:27 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-02 10:37 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 01:16 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 11:16 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 02:10 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-04 12:28 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-05 01:51 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-04 19:45 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-03 11:13 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 02:12 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-04 12:35 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-05 01:50 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-05 09:10 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 09:23 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-05 15:09 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-06 02:12 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-06 19:38 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-07 00:55 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-07 22:23 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-08 00:39 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-08 02:14 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-08 03:55 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-08 11:14 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:36 -0700
xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 14:41 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-28 15:06 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-28 17:42 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 18:56 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-28 18:14 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 19:20 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-28 19:57 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 23:23 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 00:45 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 01:29 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 09:21 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 12:44 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-28 23:08 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 01:24 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-30 02:35 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-30 00:40 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 10:40 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-30 14:04 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 22:31 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-31 15:20 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-30 19:47 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 03:15 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-03 08:57 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 07:59 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 11:02 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-06-03 14:41 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 02:07 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 14:41 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 00:54 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 10:32 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 13:08 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 14:10 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 15:27 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 15:19 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 14:38 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 15:43 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 14:57 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 07:54 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 17:27 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 19:27 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-29 14:07 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 22:59 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 22:46 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-30 01:18 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 02:31 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-30 12:23 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 14:40 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 14:21 -0700
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:41 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 08:31 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-30 00:06 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 13:31 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 15:15 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 16:09 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 08:29 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:50 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-05-30 16:00 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 18:28 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 03:10 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 10:01 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-30 11:33 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-30 12:13 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 14:14 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 07:51 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 03:12 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 10:57 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 12:38 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 12:23 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 15:23 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 15:16 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-29 18:32 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 18:41 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 21:31 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 07:49 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 13:01 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-29 10:18 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-28 17:34 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-29 22:08 +0100
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-30 15:05 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-30 14:20 -0400
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 12:27 -0700
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-31 09:55 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-31 13:45 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-31 13:33 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-02 04:19 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-02 13:40 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-02 04:16 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 18:39 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 02:07 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 04:46 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 03:58 +0000
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-04 09:52 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-04 11:01 +0300
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 10:34 +0200
Re: xxd -i vs DIY Was: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-06-03 22:46 -0400
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 13:54 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 01:03 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:32 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 22:23 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-23 02:59 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:08 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-23 04:20 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-23 04:47 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 21:30 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 07:29 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 14:32 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 13:37 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:31 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-23 20:23 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 16:25 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-23 20:31 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 14:28 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-23 17:10 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-23 15:43 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-23 02:49 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-23 16:40 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-23 15:36 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 14:24 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:35 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:05 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:17 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 16:50 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 11:08 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 11:21 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 13:22 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-24 23:51 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-23 03:13 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:42 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-23 14:35 -0400
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 09:40 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 17:10 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:29 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 13:29 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:21 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 16:15 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-23 15:02 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 15:56 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 17:15 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-05-23 17:37 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 12:05 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-05-24 06:54 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 18:46 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-05-25 03:01 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-23 17:19 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-23 22:10 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 00:34 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-24 01:06 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 07:47 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-25 00:31 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 06:38 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-24 05:42 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 11:42 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-05-23 18:35 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-05-23 20:28 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-24 17:57 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-05-24 16:16 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 16:41 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 19:22 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-24 19:38 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 13:06 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-05-24 21:20 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-25 00:32 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 17:28 +0200
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-25 00:40 +0000
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-25 17:47 +0200
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:45 -0700
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 16:18 +0200
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 09:48 -0500
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 18:12 +0200
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-28 02:48 +0000
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 01:31 -0500
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-29 11:27 -0400
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 14:18 -0500
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-28 13:56 +0200
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 20:26 -0700
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-26 18:59 -0400
Re: errno (was Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative?) BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 15:23 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 14:38 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions - why so conservative? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-24 00:48 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 21:25 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 16:49 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 07:36 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-24 09:32 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 18:34 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 09:13 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 13:23 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 00:55 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 18:34 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-01 01:27 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-02 11:02 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-02 14:03 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-02 16:29 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-02 19:23 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-02 21:44 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 12:00 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-03 18:34 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-03 16:50 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-03 21:05 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-03 19:38 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 22:58 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-03 21:22 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-04 05:17 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-04 11:23 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-04 10:25 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-04 13:30 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:48 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-04 19:17 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 17:32 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-05 07:22 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-05 07:14 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 04:01 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-07 00:57 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 02:52 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-14 03:20 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-05 07:15 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-05 13:32 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2024-06-05 13:59 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-07 00:59 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-04 05:12 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 06:55 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-02 19:15 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 12:46 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-03 03:21 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-03 14:16 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-03 13:23 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 13:46 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-04 19:21 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 20:44 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-06-04 23:59 -0400
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 00:44 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-05 13:29 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 13:49 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-03 21:14 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-01 15:28 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:33 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-02 03:28 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-25 21:24 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 08:32 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 02:48 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 13:44 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 15:39 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 15:46 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 17:20 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 16:29 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 18:05 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 18:26 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 19:50 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-28 05:41 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-28 10:46 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 17:10 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-05-26 18:23 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 19:23 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-26 18:36 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 19:11 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 16:30 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-27 10:45 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-28 05:45 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 13:53 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-26 21:16 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-27 07:14 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-27 00:53 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-26 21:03 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2024-05-26 08:44 +0200
Don't let the door hit you... (Was: C23 thoughts and opinions) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-23 19:58 +0000
Re: Don't let the door hit you... (Was: C23 thoughts and opinions) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 18:35 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 17:55 -0500
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-01 15:30 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-02 03:29 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 23:31 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-06-02 13:24 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-06-02 16:51 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-02 19:52 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-03 12:01 +0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-03 13:31 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 14:02 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-06-03 21:48 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-04 10:36 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 14:47 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-03 23:43 +0100
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 16:23 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-04 10:47 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-06-04 02:20 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-04 10:47 +0200
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-04 05:25 +0000
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-03 13:29 -0700
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 21:35 -0300
Re: C23 thoughts and opinions BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 16:05 -0500
Page 11 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 28 Next page →
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-08 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v42cs4$2pjrh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385768 |
On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote: >> >>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries is to use >>> an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the binary-bloat >>> started to get much more obvious around Visual Studio 2010, but is less >>> of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008. >> >> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than older >> version?!? > If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect these > to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha little > comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and utimalthe he Os picks > the up and flushes it out to a pixel raster. And that' aal it's doing. > Whilst on a modrern syste, stdout can do whole lot of intricate things. > That is a whole lot of typos... But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than static linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in this area. A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still manages to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely dynamic-linked libraries. And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being around 40% slower). Contrast, VS2008 can build programs with binary sizes closer to those of GCC. ... I have noted that there is often a curious level of similarity between code generation in MSVC and what I have managed to pull off in BGBCC, implying that they may be "similar" in terms of optimization and register allocation. Can't say whether or not it is the same algorithms, but GCC seems to work differently. For example: BGBCC assigns registers either on per-function basis, or allocated within a basic block; Any registers that are allocated within a basic block, are spilled to the stack at the end of a basic block; Those that are static assigned to registers, will always use this register within the function in question. GCC appears to locally assign registers within basic blocks and across the edges between basic blocks, without either global assignment or needing to spill them to the stack. Seemingly in contrast to both BGBCC and (seemingly) also MSVC. Though, that said, compiling code with my compiler and ISA still seems to be beating RISC-V in terms of performance (despite GCC's valiant efforts with "-O3"). I suspect though this is mostly due to limitations of RISC-V, and GCC can only work with what it is given: Only has a [Reg+Disp] addressing mode; No way to express immediate values larger than 12 bits; ... And, for PIE, performing function calls and accessing global variables via the GOT doesn't exactly help matters. Say, for example: For a non-PIE build, BJX2-XG2 and RV64G were roughly break-even in terms of code-size, with around a 10-20% performance delta; For a PIE build (currently needed to load RV64 binaries in my kernel), there is around a 60% code-size delta, and around a 20-35% performance delta. Can note that I am using an ABI design that still allows for dynamic linking and (also) for NOMMU operation similar to FDPIC, but doesn't hurt performance quite as badly. Function calls still use PC relative displacements, except for dllimport (which would involve a trampoline). Global variables are accessed as a load/store relative to the Global Pointer. The global pointer may be saved/restored in prolog's/epilogs and there is an ABI-defined ritual to get the global pointer reloaded to the correct value for the current image (note that loading a PC-relative address into the global pointer is not be valid in this ABI; as there may be multiple instances of a program running in the same address space each with their own unique global pointers). However, saving/restoring and reloading the global pointer once in a function, is cheaper than accessing global variables indirectly via the GOT. ... Granted: There is a drawback that with my ABI, in that it can't implicitly share functions or variables across DLL boundaries. Can also note that on x86-64, despite MSVC having similar behavior. and GCC using PIE on x86-64 in WSL that works in a similar way to PIE on RV64, the programs built as PIE on x86-64 are faster than those built via MSVC. Granted, it is possible that x86-64 can hide a lot of the penalties from PIE via modern x86-64 CPUs almost universally being OoO (only real exceptions I am aware of being the early Atom cores, and early versions of the Xeon Phi). ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 12:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240609124032.00004eb1@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385771 |
On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:52:26 -0500 BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote: > >> > >>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries is > >>> to use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the > >>> binary-bloat started to get much more obvious around Visual > >>> Studio 2010, but is less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008. > >> > >> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than > >> older version?!? > > If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect > > these to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha > > little comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and utimalthe > > he Os picks the up and flushes it out to a pixel raster. And that' > > aal it's doing. Whilst on a modrern syste, stdout can do whole lot > > of intricate things. > > That is a whole lot of typos... > > > But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than static > linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in this area. > > A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still manages > to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely dynamic-linked > libraries. > > And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a > dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being > around 40% slower). > GCC on Windows or on Linux? In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good as older versions at producing small code. The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes vs2019 - 9,216 bytes gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes MSVC compilation flags: -O1 -MD gcc compilation flags: -Oz -s > Contrast, VS2008 can build programs with binary sizes closer to those > of GCC. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v43vkr$3d7el$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385785 |
On 09/06/2024 10:40, Michael S wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:52:26 -0500
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries is
>>>>> to use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the
>>>>> binary-bloat started to get much more obvious around Visual
>>>>> Studio 2010, but is less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008.
>>>>
>>>> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than
>>>> older version?!?
>>> If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect
>>> these to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha
>>> little comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and utimalthe
>>> he Os picks the up and flushes it out to a pixel raster. And that'
>>> aal it's doing. Whilst on a modrern syste, stdout can do whole lot
>>> of intricate things.
>>
>> That is a whole lot of typos...
>>
>>
>> But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than static
>> linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in this area.
>>
>> A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still manages
>> to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely dynamic-linked
>> libraries.
>>
>> And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a
>> dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being
>> around 40% slower).
>>
>
> GCC on Windows or on Linux?
> In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants
> are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than even
> latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good as older
> versions at producing small code.
>
> The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C RTL)
> vs2013 - 6,144 bytes
> vs2019 - 9,216 bytes
> gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes
> gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes
> gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes
> gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes
I get a lot worse than that:
C:\c>gcc hello.c
C:\c>dir a.exe
09/06/2024 11:04 367,349 a.exe
C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os
C:\c>dir a.exe
09/06/2024 11:04 88,064 a.exe
(It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?)
Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0.
tcc gives 2KB, and mcc gives 2.5KB.
(With the latter, I know it is because it uses a comprises 5 blocks of
data each of which is at least 512 bytes: 2 for header stuff, plus
always 3 segments. The mininum hello.exe size I think is 700 bytes if a
few corners are cut.)
367KB sounds astonishing, but the first time I tried Dart, it gave me a
5MB executable for 'hello.dart'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:12 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240609141239.00006be6@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385786 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2024 10:40, Michael S wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:52:26 -0500 > > BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries > >>>>> is to use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the > >>>>> binary-bloat started to get much more obvious around Visual > >>>>> Studio 2010, but is less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008. > >>>> > >>>> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than > >>>> older version?!? > >>> If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect > >>> these to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha > >>> little comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and > >>> utimalthe he Os picks the up and flushes it out to a pixel > >>> raster. And that' aal it's doing. Whilst on a modrern syste, > >>> stdout can do whole lot of intricate things. > >> > >> That is a whole lot of typos... > >> > >> > >> But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than > >> static linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in > >> this area. > >> > >> A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still > >> manages to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely > >> dynamic-linked libraries. > >> > >> And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a > >> dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being > >> around 40% slower). > >> > > > > GCC on Windows or on Linux? > > In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants > > are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than > > even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good > > as older versions at producing small code. > > > > The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C > > RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes > > vs2019 - 9,216 bytes > > gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes > > gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes > > gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes > > gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes > > I get a lot worse than that: > > C:\c>gcc hello.c > > C:\c>dir a.exe > 09/06/2024 11:04 367,349 a.exe > > C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os > > C:\c>dir a.exe > 09/06/2024 11:04 88,064 a.exe > > (It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?) > No, I meant -Oz. It was invented by clang, but newer gcc understand it. I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a little smaller. In program as trivial as this, there should be no difference. > Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0. > My gcc variants are from msys2. Where did you get yours? > tcc gives 2KB, and mcc gives 2.5KB. > x86-64 or i386? I think, on i386 VC5 can come close, but can not match it. I don't have VC5 right now. Last time I tried to find it it was surprisingly hard. Well, probably I still has it on one very old PC that I didn't power up for many years. I don't know if it is still alive. > (With the latter, I know it is because it uses a comprises 5 blocks > of data each of which is at least 512 bytes: 2 for header stuff, plus > always 3 segments. The mininum hello.exe size I think is 700 bytes if > a few corners are cut.) > > 367KB sounds astonishing, but the first time I tried Dart, it gave me > a 5MB executable for 'hello.dart'. golang tend to start at >1.5MB, but then it grows very slowly. It appears to generate *very* self-contained executives. At least I personally never encountered case where simple copy of exe to new computer was insufficient. Considering that go needs much more of run-time support than dart, I can't find any reason for 5MB except "they don't care".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 14:44 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240609144427.0000016c@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385787 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:12:39 +0300 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > > > > 367KB sounds astonishing, but the first time I tried Dart, it gave > > me a 5MB executable for 'hello.dart'. > > golang tend to start at >1.5MB, but then it grows very slowly. It > appears to generate *very* self-contained executives. At least I > personally never encountered case where simple copy of exe to new > computer was insufficient. > Considering that go needs much more of run-time support than dart, I > can't find any reason for 5MB except "they don't care". > If we started talking about size of statically linked binaries, in this field [on x86-64] an advantage of Windows/MSVC over Linux/gcc appears quite huge. MSVC 2013 - 84,480 bytes MSVC 2019 - 119,808 bytes gcc (Debian Linux) - 682,688 bytes By old standards, MSVC binary is bloated beyond reason, but comparatively to gcc/Linux it looks almost lean. I can't say that I care deeply, but can't say that I don't care at all either. Statically linked binaries is the only way by which I was able to copy programs compiled on relatively new Debian to Ubuntu-LTS that was not that much older (2-3 years). I fully believe that there exist other methods, but they are above my skills and above skills of co-workers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 17:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v44lf7$3kpef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385787 |
On 09/06/2024 12:12, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>> GCC on Windows or on Linux? >>> In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants >>> are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than >>> even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good >>> as older versions at producing small code. >>> >>> The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C >>> RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes >>> vs2019 - 9,216 bytes >>> gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes >>> gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes >>> gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes >>> gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes >> >> I get a lot worse than that: >> >> C:\c>gcc hello.c >> >> C:\c>dir a.exe >> 09/06/2024 11:04 367,349 a.exe >> >> C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os >> >> C:\c>dir a.exe >> 09/06/2024 11:04 88,064 a.exe >> >> (It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?) >> > > No, I meant -Oz. > It was invented by clang, but newer gcc understand it. > I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a little > smaller. > In program as trivial as this, there should be no difference. > >> Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0. >> > > My gcc variants are from msys2. > Where did you get yours? It's gcc/TDM. Anything else, I can spend 10 minutes following links to a mingw download, only to end up back where I started from. gcc/TDM is a much simpler installation. >> tcc gives 2KB, and mcc gives 2.5KB. >> > > x86-64 or i386? All were for x64. gcc's stdio.h header defines `printf` (which my hello.c uses) as an inlined wrapper based around `__mingw_vasprintf()`. So there might be further inlined stuff or that is statically linked, before it finally ends up calling the real `printf`. With gcc, I get 39.9KB for -m32 -Os -s. If I use 'puts' instead, and -m32, then it gets down to 14KB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 20:00 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240609200014.000014be@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385797 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:32:40 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2024 12:12, Michael S wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100 > > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > > > >>> GCC on Windows or on Linux? > >>> In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc > >>> variants are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) > >>> exe than even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are > >>> not as good as older versions at producing small code. > >>> > >>> The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C > >>> RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes > >>> vs2019 - 9,216 bytes > >>> gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes > >>> gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes > >>> gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes > >>> gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes > >> > >> I get a lot worse than that: > >> > >> C:\c>gcc hello.c > >> > >> C:\c>dir a.exe > >> 09/06/2024 11:04 367,349 a.exe > >> > >> C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os > >> > >> C:\c>dir a.exe > >> 09/06/2024 11:04 88,064 a.exe > >> > >> (It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?) > >> > > > > No, I meant -Oz. > > It was invented by clang, but newer gcc understand it. > > I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a > > little smaller. > > In program as trivial as this, there should be no difference. > > > >> Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0. > >> > > > > My gcc variants are from msys2. > > Where did you get yours? > > It's gcc/TDM. I never heard about TDM except from you. > Anything else, I can spend 10 minutes following links > to a mingw download, only to end up back where I started from. > gcc/TDM is a much simpler installation. > Somehow, I installed msys2 many times, using 2 or 3 different methods and it worked every single time. It's huge download, but it works. There were cases where I had problems installing additional packages on top of msys2, but they were always caused by idiotic policies of corporate IT. At my personal systems it was always flawless. This page appear to give correct up to date instructions https://www.msys2.org/#installation > >> tcc gives 2KB, and mcc gives 2.5KB. > >> > > > > x86-64 or i386? > > All were for x64. > > gcc's stdio.h header defines `printf` (which my hello.c uses) as an > inlined wrapper based around `__mingw_vasprintf()`. So there might > be further inlined stuff or that is statically linked, before it > finally ends up calling the real `printf`. > The size you mentioned in the previous post is suspiciously similar to the size VS2013 statically linked binary. > With gcc, I get 39.9KB for -m32 -Os -s. > That is smaller than statically linked 32-bit VS2013 (73,216 bytes). But a lot bigger than 6,144 DLL-based VS2013 32bit binary. > If I use 'puts' instead, and -m32, then it gets down to 14KB. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v451v8$3oq3d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385798 |
On 09/06/2024 18:00, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:32:40 +0100 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 09/06/2024 12:12, Michael S wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:20:11 +0100 >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> GCC on Windows or on Linux? >>>>> In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc >>>>> variants are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) >>>>> exe than even latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are >>>>> not as good as older versions at producing small code. >>>>> >>>>> The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C >>>>> RTL) vs2013 - 6,144 bytes >>>>> vs2019 - 9,216 bytes >>>>> gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes >>>>> gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes >>>>> gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes >>>>> gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes >>>> >>>> I get a lot worse than that: >>>> >>>> C:\c>gcc hello.c >>>> >>>> C:\c>dir a.exe >>>> 09/06/2024 11:04 367,349 a.exe >>>> >>>> C:\c>gcc hello.c -s -Os >>>> >>>> C:\c>dir a.exe >>>> 09/06/2024 11:04 88,064 a.exe >>>> >>>> (It didn't like -Oz; did you mean something other than -Os?) >>>> >>> >>> No, I meant -Oz. >>> It was invented by clang, but newer gcc understand it. >>> I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a >>> little smaller. >>> In program as trivial as this, there should be no difference. >>> >>>> Both import msvcrt.dll. gcc is version 10.3.0. >>>> >>> >>> My gcc variants are from msys2. >>> Where did you get yours? >> >> It's gcc/TDM. > > I never heard about TDM except from you. > >> Anything else, I can spend 10 minutes following links >> to a mingw download, only to end up back where I started from. >> gcc/TDM is a much simpler installation. >> > > Somehow, I installed msys2 many times, using 2 or 3 different methods > and it worked every single time. It's huge download, but it works. > There were cases where I had problems installing additional packages on > top of msys2, but they were always caused by idiotic policies of > corporate IT. At my personal systems it was always flawless. I'm not talking about MSYS2. I'm not even sure what it is. msys2.org describes it as: "MSYS2 is software distribution and a building platform for Windows. It provides a Unix-like environment, a command-line interface and a software repository making it easier to install, use, build and port software on Windows. That means Bash, Autotools, Make, Git, GCC, GDB..., all easily installable through Pacman, a fully-featured package manager." Um, I only want an optimising C compiler, nothing else! And especially I do NOT want a 'Unix-like' environment; I think it is entirely unnecessary for a tool that simply converts .c files into .exe files. > This page appear to give correct up to date instructions > https://www.msys2.org/#installation Today I tried once more to install mingw gcc. One hit gave me this page: https://www.naukri.com/code360/library/gcc-compiler-for-windows Step 1 tells me to click here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/ It says: "A complete runtime environment for gcc"; hmm; it doesn't sound like a compiler! But I'm just following the instructions. After 10 minutes I had a 110B installation with 6000 files, but none was the 85KB EXE file mentioned in step 3, which isn't even part of the ZIP according to the screen shot. Where does that file come from? So I tried a different tack; that took me here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/ This one turns out to be that 85KB file that was missing before! OK, let's do it. It shows a list of things to install, including MSYS2 (no thanks) and compilers for Ada, C++, Fortran, Objective-C, but no C, unless it is the 'base' package? I have really no idea. I click that, but then what? There is no Install, Proceed, Get, or OK button! But under a pulldown menu, there is Apply Changes. Now it's doing something. At the end there was no specific message, but it said somewhere: This package has not been installed;... But I tried it anyway (notice this is from a normal command line): C:\c>gcc --version gcc (MinGW.org GCC-6.3.0-1) 6.3.0 So it's version 6 of gcc! Nowhere do I remember seeing that mentioned. I don't normally waste my time going down these futile rabbitholes, but sometimes it can be fun as you get to see some appallingly bad installation processes. Of course, people will go to any lengths to defend these very complex products, and will explain to you why it is good idea to separate out compiler, headers, assembler, linker, library into lots of different pieces, all with names that are subtle variations of mingw and w64 This is why I prefer TDM: https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/ Click on the version you want. Other Windows C compilers are even simpler, and smaller. (TDM is 0.5GB, Tiny C is under 0.002GB, and own 'bcc' is 0.001GB. My own non-C compiler is 0.0004GB. Both my products are single EXE files.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 23:40 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240609234007.0000162e@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385799 |
I can only tell you what works well for me. I can't force you to use it. Also, I can't prevent you from trying to use something that no longer works well due to absence of support, i.e. old msys/mingw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 22:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v4581i$3qmf9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385800 |
On 09/06/2024 21:40, Michael S wrote: > I can only tell you what works well for me. I can't force you to use it. > Also, I can't prevent you from trying to use something that no longer > works well due to absence of support, i.e. old msys/mingw. > I was trying to install the LATEST version of gcc on Windows! That would 13.x, which I've done before, perhaps hitting on the right link by chance. 'gcc' /can/ be run from a pure Windows command line, as I've been using versions of it for years. But they don't make it easy, as gcc is perceived to be tied to WSL MSYS2 MINGW CYGWIN. I've had another go at this elusive compiler, this time apparently successful. Here are the steps I used: * Start from mingw-w64.com. Ignore where it says it's a 'complete runtime environment for gcc'. There is also an actual compiler at the end of the process! * Click on Downloads on the left * There is a list of prebuilt toolchains. The promising ones are w64devkit, MingW-W64-builds, and possibly WinLibs.com? I clicked on MinGW-W64-builds. * That takes you down the page to MingW-Builds, but this is where I had a bit of luck: as this is a one-line entry, I missed it and starting reading about WinLibs.com instead. But where are the downloads? The link is in the small print on the last line of that section. * It you to winlibs.com. This is looks disconcertingly like a 1990s website. It surely can't be the right place? Just don't click on MinGW-w64 as that just takes you back to square one. * Scroll down to Downloads. There are 16 to choose from for each version. I clicked (by mistake - I think) on the version /with/ LLVM etc, but I don't know what the difference is. I chose the MSVCRT version. The end result was a 1.4GB installation of gcc 14.1.0. Using 'gcc hello.c -Os -s' gives of 48KB (with 10.3 it was 88KB). It still imports msvcrt.dll, but not printf (it does import vfprintf).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 01:06 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240610010653.00005f00@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385802 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:49:39 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2024 21:40, Michael S wrote: > > I can only tell you what works well for me. I can't force you to > > use it. Also, I can't prevent you from trying to use something that > > no longer works well due to absence of support, i.e. old msys/mingw. > > > > I was trying to install the LATEST version of gcc on Windows! That > would 13.x, which I've done before, perhaps hitting on the right link > by chance. > > 'gcc' /can/ be run from a pure Windows command line, as I've been > using versions of it for years. > > But they don't make it easy, as gcc is perceived to be tied to WSL > MSYS2 MINGW CYGWIN. > > I've had another go at this elusive compiler, this time apparently > successful. Here are the steps I used: > > * Start from mingw-w64.com. Ignore where it says it's a 'complete > runtime environment for gcc'. There is also an actual compiler at > the end of the process! > > * Click on Downloads on the left > > * There is a list of prebuilt toolchains. The promising ones are > w64devkit, MingW-W64-builds, and possibly WinLibs.com? > I clicked on MinGW-W64-builds. > > * That takes you down the page to MingW-Builds, but this is where I > had a bit of luck: as this is a one-line entry, I missed it and > starting reading about WinLibs.com instead. But where are the > downloads? The link is in the small print on the last line of that > section. > > * It you to winlibs.com. This is looks disconcertingly like a 1990s > website. It surely can't be the right place? Just don't click on > MinGW-w64 as that just takes you back to square one. > > * Scroll down to Downloads. There are 16 to choose from for each > version. I clicked (by mistake - I think) on the version /with/ > LLVM etc, but I don't know what the difference is. I chose the MSVCRT > version. > > The end result was a 1.4GB installation of gcc 14.1.0. Using 'gcc > hello.c -Os -s' gives of 48KB (with 10.3 it was 88KB). It still > imports msvcrt.dll, but not printf (it does import vfprintf). > It sounds like you ended up with gcc distro based on 12 y.o. Microsoft DLL that does not support majority of c11 library features and likely does not support few c99 library features as well. If you were a little less stubborn, in 10 minutes you could have have distro based on new ucrt DLL that is closer to new C standard and generates smaller binaries. And likely occupies less than 1.4 GB. BTW, I don't understand why MSVC produces smaller binaries with old MS C RTL DLL while gcc produces smaller binaries with new MS C RTL DLL. But that's undeniable fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 01:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v45h7d$3tdeb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385803 |
On 09/06/2024 23:06, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:49:39 +0100 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 09/06/2024 21:40, Michael S wrote: >>> I can only tell you what works well for me. I can't force you to >>> use it. Also, I can't prevent you from trying to use something that >>> no longer works well due to absence of support, i.e. old msys/mingw. >>> >> >> I was trying to install the LATEST version of gcc on Windows! That >> would 13.x, which I've done before, perhaps hitting on the right link >> by chance. >> >> 'gcc' /can/ be run from a pure Windows command line, as I've been >> using versions of it for years. >> >> But they don't make it easy, as gcc is perceived to be tied to WSL >> MSYS2 MINGW CYGWIN. >> >> I've had another go at this elusive compiler, this time apparently >> successful. Here are the steps I used: ... >> >> The end result was a 1.4GB installation of gcc 14.1.0. Using 'gcc >> hello.c -Os -s' gives of 48KB (with 10.3 it was 88KB). It still >> imports msvcrt.dll, but not printf (it does import vfprintf). >> > > It sounds like you ended up with gcc distro based on 12 y.o. Microsoft > DLL that does not support majority of c11 library features and likely > does not support few c99 library features as well. > If you were a little less stubborn, in 10 minutes you could have have > distro based on new ucrt DLL that is closer to new C standard and > generates smaller binaries. > And likely occupies less than 1.4 GB. I downloaded a different 14.1 version that was 'only' 0.8GB. (Compared to 1.4GB; it's still 2000 times bigger than my main compiler!) That uses UCRT, but the size difference is probably due to not including LLVM/Clang stuff. (Which didn't work anyway; I think clang triggered my AV.) This now gives a hello.c executable of 22KB; it was 48KB with the 1.4GB download, and 88KB with 10.3.0. > BTW, I don't understand why MSVC produces smaller binaries with old MS C > RTL DLL while gcc produces smaller binaries with new MS C RTL DLL. > But that's undeniable fact. I think the sizes of the runtime libraries are irrelevant if they are both dynamically linked. It's what the compiler puts directly into the executable that makes the difference. And here they are just too diverse in how they work. It can't be the 20 bytes of code for hello.c that affects it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 08:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v49259$vb55$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385787 |
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:12:39 +0300, Michael S wrote: > I don't know what is a difference exactly, but -Oz tends to be a little > smaller. Some kind of “wizard” optimization, no doubt ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 21:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v45nfu$2k71$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385785 |
On 6/9/2024 4:40 AM, Michael S wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:52:26 -0500
> BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2024 1:28 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries is
>>>>> to use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the
>>>>> binary-bloat started to get much more obvious around Visual
>>>>> Studio 2010, but is less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008.
>>>>
>>>> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than
>>>> older version?!?
>>> If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect
>>> these to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha
>>> little comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and utimalthe
>>> he Os picks the up and flushes it out to a pixel raster. And that'
>>> aal it's doing. Whilst on a modrern syste, stdout can do whole lot
>>> of intricate things.
>>
>> That is a whole lot of typos...
>>
>>
>> But, even if it is built calling MSVCRT as a DLL (rather than static
>> linked), modern MSVC is still the worst of the bunch in this area.
>>
>> A build as RISC-V + PIE with a static-linked C library still manages
>> to be smaller than an x64 build via MSVC with entirely dynamic-linked
>> libraries.
>>
>> And, around 72% bigger than the same program built as a
>> dynamic-linked binary with "GCC -O3" (while also often still being
>> around 40% slower).
>>
>
> GCC on Windows or on Linux?
Windows + WSL, which produces ELF64.
The "gcc -v" from the main version of WSL I am using:
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.8/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu
4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.4'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.8/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,c++,java,go,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr
--program-suffix=-4.8 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.8 --libdir=/usr/lib
--enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
--enable-gnu-unique-object --disable-libmudflap --enable-plugin
--with-system-zlib --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk
--enable-gtk-cairo
--with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64/jre
--enable-java-home
--with-jvm-root-dir=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64
--with-jvm-jar-dir=/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-4.8-amd64
--with-arch-directory=amd64
--with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar --enable-objc-gc
--enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64
--with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --with-tune=generic
--enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
--host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.8.4 (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.4)
I have another (newer) version of WSL installed, but it doesn't have
Verilator and similar set up on it (nor is configured for the X11 server
I am running).
> In my experience, gcc on Windows (ucrt64 variant, other gcc variants
> are worse) very consistently produces bigger (stripped) exe than even
> latest MSVCs which, as you correctly stated, are not as good as older
> versions at producing small code.
>
> The size of 'Hello, world' program (x86-64, dynamically linked C RTL)
> vs2013 - 6,144 bytes
> vs2019 - 9,216 bytes
> gcc (Debian Linux, -no-pie) - 14,400 bytes
> gcc (Debian Linux) - 14,472 bytes
> gcc (ucrt64 DLL) - 18,432 bytes
> gcc (old DLL) - 42,496 bytes
>
> MSVC compilation flags: -O1 -MD
> gcc compilation flags: -Oz -s
>
I guess one option could be to compare against a newer version of Cygwin
or MinGW, but I haven't really used these for much in years.
General program I was comparing with here was a port of the original
Doom engine (but saw similar results across various programs). Something
like a "hello world" is likely too small for accurate size comparison
(and will likely be dominated by overheads).
Testing small program (not much more complicated than a "hello world")
generates a roughly 31K EXE with my compiler and a static-linked C
library (on my ISA).
The compiler in this case strips out most things not directly needed for
for "printf()" (but does seem to still include the memory-manager and
filesystem interface code, likely because these are reachable from
"printf()").
Building the same program as RV64 with the same static-linked C library,
is 326K with a little over half of the binary being ELF/PIE metadata:
~ 133k .text
~ 5K .rodata
~ 2K .data
The .dynsym / .dynstr / .rela.* / etc sections eating the rest.
(It also seems like GCC isn't pruning as much for some reason; this is
with "-ffunction-sections" and similar).
With dynamic linked glibc (x86-64), PIE, 9K.
With MSVC, static-linked C lib: 121K
With MSVC, dynamic-linked C lib: 10K
>> Contrast, VS2008 can build programs with binary sizes closer to those
>> of GCC.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v42u03$2u4lh$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385768 |
On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 19:28:47 +0100, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On 07/06/2024 01:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 15:38:21 -0500, BGB-Alt wrote: >> >>> *2: Seemingly the main way I am aware of to get small binaries is to >>> use an older version of MSVC (such as 6.0 to 9.0), as the binary-bloat >>> started to get much more obvious around Visual Studio 2010, but is >>> less of an issue with VS2005 or VS2008. >> >> Newer version of proprietary compiler generates worse code than older >> version?!? > > If the code is calling extern gunctions that do IO, we woul expect these > to be massively more sophisticated on a modern ststem Witha little > comouter, pribtf just wtites acharacter raster and utimalthe he Os picks > the up and flushes it out to a pixel raster. And that' aal it's doing. > Whilst on a modrern syste, stdout can do whole lot of intricate things. Nothing to do with the compiler, though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 22:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v3deq1$2d2v4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385368 |
On 31/05/2024 20:42, jak wrote: > bart ha scritto: >> C:\c>objcopy -I binary -O elf64-x86-64 hello.c hello.obj > You could use the pe-x86-64 format instead of the elf64-x86-64 to reduce > the size of the object. The PE format doesn't work; gcc's ld linker has a problem with it, when it is generated by 'objcopy'. Actually there is a LOT wrong with this whole approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-01 21:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240601211131.00001e16@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #385364 |
On Fri, 31 May 2024 19:03:10 +0100 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > OK, thanks. But I forget to ask what results you got from running the > program. Because if I try your code, using hello.c and hello.exe as > test binary/source data, I get this output: > > _binary_test_bi_start 00007ff6497620e0 > 140695771160800 _binary_test_bi_end > 00007ff649762ae0 140695771163360 _binary_test_bi_size > 00007ff509750a00 140690402380288 _binary_bin_to_list_c_start > 00007ff649762ae0 140695771163360 _binary_bin_to_list_c_end > 00007ff649762b26 140695771163430 > _binary_bin_to_list_c_size 00007ff509750046 > 140690402377798 > > The sizes should have been 2560 and 70 respectively; those values are > bit bigger than that. > That's strange. I got expected results: _binary_test_bi_start 000000013FDD30C0 5366427840 _binary_test_bi_end 000000013FDD67AC 5366441900 _binary_test_bi_size 00000000000036EC 14060 _binary_bin_to_list_c_start 000000013FDD67AC 5366441900 _binary_bin_to_list_c_end 000000013FDD711F 5366444319 _binary_bin_to_list_c_size 0000000000000973 2419 > However I see that you also have start and end addresses, which > sounds a much better way of determining the size. (In that case, what > are those *size symbols for?). > I'd guess, *_size is here for the benefit of less smart compilers that can not figure out that *_end - *_start is a connst expression and can not compile code like: static ptrdiff_t bar = _binary_test_bi_end - _binary_test_bi_start; But that is just a guess. For better answer you can ask authors of objcopy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-01 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8634pwp3vg.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #385392 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Fri, 31 May 2024 19:03:10 +0100 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> OK, thanks. But I forget to ask what results you got from running the >> program. Because if I try your code, using hello.c and hello.exe as >> test binary/source data, I get this output: >> >> _binary_test_bi_start 00007ff6497620e0 >> 140695771160800 _binary_test_bi_end >> 00007ff649762ae0 140695771163360 _binary_test_bi_size >> 00007ff509750a00 140690402380288 _binary_bin_to_list_c_start >> 00007ff649762ae0 140695771163360 _binary_bin_to_list_c_end >> 00007ff649762b26 140695771163430 >> _binary_bin_to_list_c_size 00007ff509750046 >> 140690402377798 >> >> The sizes should have been 2560 and 70 respectively; those values are >> bit bigger than that. > > That's strange. I got expected results: > _binary_test_bi_start 000000013FDD30C0 5366427840 > _binary_test_bi_end 000000013FDD67AC 5366441900 > _binary_test_bi_size 00000000000036EC 14060 > _binary_bin_to_list_c_start 000000013FDD67AC 5366441900 > _binary_bin_to_list_c_end 000000013FDD711F 5366444319 > _binary_bin_to_list_c_size 0000000000000973 2419 > >> However I see that you also have start and end addresses, which >> sounds a much better way of determining the size. (In that case, what >> are those *size symbols for?). > > I'd guess, *_size is here for the benefit of less smart compilers that > can not figure out that *_end - *_start is a connst expression > and can not compile code like: > > static ptrdiff_t bar = _binary_test_bi_end - _binary_test_bi_start; I wouldn't expect any C compiler to accept that. It's not a constant expression under the rules of the C standard, and there is no plausible way to generate code for it in the context of compiling one translation unit. Neither gcc nor clang accepts it, even run without asking for any standard compliance. An implementation could allow it as an extension, but there seems little reason to do so, because it would be a lot of work to implement, and offers very little utility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v3clcb$28n91$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #385352 |
On 31/05/2024 14:19, Michael S wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 13:55:33 +0100
> No, it does not work like that.
> First, copy *exactly* what I said in my previous post.
> Only after you reproduced, start to be smart.
> _binary_hello_c_size is a link simbol rather than variable.
>
> Declaration:
> extern char _binary_hello_c_size[];
>
> Usage:
> printf("%zd\n", (size_t)_binary_hello_c_size);
I've now tried all sorts of combinations. While I can display the
address of _binary_hello_c_size, it will crash if I try and deference it.
The value of that symbol looks like this:
00007ff678b90046
It is clearly not the size of the data. But as I said, I can't get
inside it. Neither is it simply the end address of the data (they differ
by about 2**30).
>> One small matter is those ugly, long identifiers. A bigger one in
>> this case is that I really want that embedded text to be zero
>> terminated; here it's unlikely to be.
>>
>
> The tool is not made specifically for ASCII strings, it is more generic.
There are two possibilities I'm interested in:
* Having the data zero-terminated, for when you want to embed a text
file as a zero-terminated string
* Everything else, where you just want the binary blob as-is
>> Unfortunately gcc/ld doesn't recognise the output of objcopy. Even
>> though it accepts the output of mcc which is the same COFF format.
>>
>
> It recognizes it if lye to objcopy about format.
> Specify elf64-x86-64 instead of pe-x86-64 and everything suddenly
> works.
> It's all was said in my posts from yesterday. It does not sound like you
> had read them.
You said RTFM; I did. Nowhere did it say you have to use ELF object
format /on Windows/.
So, since I know gcc/ld on Windows understands PE, why didn't work?
You can see there is problem after problem and a number of quirks.
But if you have a fully working demo(you can forget the string
requirement, that was just an easy way of showing it had the right
data), then I will look at it again.
Even if works however, I don't like it and now don't trust it.
This is why I prefer language-supported solutions, and fortunately in my
languages I can make it as simple and intuitive as I like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240531081143.419@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #385351 |
On 2024-05-31, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Here's how builtin embedding worked using a feature of my older C compiler:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <string.h>
>
> char hello[] = strinclude("hello.c");
>
> int main(void) {
> printf("hello =\n%s\n", hello);
> printf("strlen(hello) = %zu\n", strlen(hello));
> printf("sizeof(hello) = %zu\n", sizeof(hello));
> }
Lisp:
$ cat strincl.tl
(defmacro strinclude (path)
(put-line `including @path`)
(file-get-string path))
(defun test()
(strinclude "/etc/hostname"))
When we run it interpreted we see from the debug put-line that /etc/hostname is
included at macro-expansion time before we run the test function:
$ txr -i strincl.tl
including /etc/hostname
This TTY may be recorded for privacy-violating and evidence-gathering purposes.
1> (test)
"sun-go\n"
Now compile the file: the file is pulled it at compile time. Twice. :)
A double expansion took place due to certain complexities of compiling.
$ txr --compile=strincl.tl
including /etc/hostname
including /etc/hostname
Now when we load the compiled file, the diagnostic trace
"including /etc/hostname" no longer appears: the string is part of the test
function as a literal:
$ txr -i strincl
TXR is enteric coated to release over 24 hours of lasting relief.
1> (test)
"sun-go\n"
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 28 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 28 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web