Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #390647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-02 14:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-03-04 05:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 417 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-02 14:35 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 15:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-02 16:58 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-03-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:14 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 12:30 -0500
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-02 18:35 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-03 10:29 -0800
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 08:13 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 08:31 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 10:44 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 12:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 15:03 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 16:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 12:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 15:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 10:22 -0500
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:19 +0000
Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 11:24 -0500
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 11:39 -0500
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-03 16:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:22 +0100
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:31 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:32 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 08:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 09:57 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 10:03 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-04 12:27 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 13:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 17:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-04 18:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 00:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-05 01:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 02:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-05 11:46 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-05 14:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-06 08:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile Mark Bourne <nntp.mbourne@spamgourmet.com> - 2025-03-07 20:34 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 21:22 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-07 09:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 21:17 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-05 15:36 -0800
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-06 00:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-06 13:45 -0800
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-06 23:55 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-13 14:52 -0700
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 11:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 00:14 -0700
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-19 16:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-21 00:20 -0700
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-13 14:49 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 02:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-06 11:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 22:17 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-07 15:48 +0100
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-05 09:10 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 22:08 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-06 00:01 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:45 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-06 19:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-06 20:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 21:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-07 01:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 02:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-11 00:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 21:27 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-07 09:53 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-07 14:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-07 14:09 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-07 18:02 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 12:15 -0800
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-07 21:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-07 22:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 15:21 -0800
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-08 05:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile flexibeast@gmail.com - 2025-03-08 09:55 +1100
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 15:46 -0800
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 02:05 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 23:19 -0800
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 10:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-08 14:48 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 06:17 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-08 19:29 +0200
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 18:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-08 13:13 -0800
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 23:03 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-09 01:26 +0200
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 02:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-09 11:28 +0200
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-09 14:26 +0200
What is the source language? (Was: Python recompile) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-09 13:41 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-09 17:24 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-09 18:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 21:48 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-10 15:20 +0200
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-10 15:11 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-10 17:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 18:05 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-10 19:26 +0000
History of poll() API (was: Python recompile) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 11:12 +0200
Re: History of poll() API (was: Python recompile) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 15:07 +0000
Re: History of poll() API (was: Python recompile) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 19:10 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-11 08:31 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 14:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-11 14:24 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 21:38 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-11 08:34 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:52 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-12 08:11 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-14 01:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-14 10:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 15:10 +0000
Something other than... (Was: Python recompile) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-12 12:22 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 21:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 14:40 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 21:55 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 00:24 +0200
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 17:56 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 22:50 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 23:19 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 17:56 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 03:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 21:25 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 21:27 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 14:22 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 06:38 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 16:50 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 01:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 19:18 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 06:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 12:53 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 20:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 14:09 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 21:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 14:44 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 14:45 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 14:48 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 19:01 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 03:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 21:30 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 06:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 14:12 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 22:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 17:17 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 20:04 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 03:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 21:22 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 06:50 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 13:09 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 22:25 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 20:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 15:07 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 23:17 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 16:49 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 16:58 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-13 17:01 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-14 01:48 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 12:46 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 12:48 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 15:13 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 15:14 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-14 21:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 15:06 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-14 23:03 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 16:25 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 16:29 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 02:31 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 19:35 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 01:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 19:30 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 19:33 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 19:38 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 05:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-15 13:49 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-16 06:41 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-16 16:20 -0700
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 22:55 -0700
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-10 10:58 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-10 16:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-10 17:25 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-10 17:46 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 18:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 18:00 -0700
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-11 01:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 14:24 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-11 16:06 +0100
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 16:23 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-11 16:49 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-11 18:09 +0100
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 20:09 +0200
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 20:17 +0200
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 21:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 00:58 +0200
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 00:43 +0000
Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 10:53 +0200
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 16:32 +0200
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 16:52 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 20:14 +0200
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 00:04 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 20:25 +0200
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 13:22 -0700
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-13 12:08 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 22:02 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-13 23:32 +0000
Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-14 00:47 +0042
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-11 21:20 +0100
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 21:18 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 15:56 -0700
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-12 11:37 +0100
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 11:14 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-12 15:58 +0100
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 17:32 +0200
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-12 17:48 +0100
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 17:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:08 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-13 00:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 02:35 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-13 11:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-13 14:40 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 23:34 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-12 15:32 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-12 17:55 +0100
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 12:59 -0700
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:51 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 19:34 +0200
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 14:18 -0700
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 11:08 +0200
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 12:58 -0700
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:43 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 22:24 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 01:15 +0200
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 16:02 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 17:10 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 17:29 -0700
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-11 21:18 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 22:02 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 23:46 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-10 06:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-14 00:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 02:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 11:32 +0200
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-14 12:32 +0200
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-14 14:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-14 23:01 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 16:30 -0700
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-14 23:26 -0400
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 15:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 17:05 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-14 18:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 19:04 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-14 19:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-14 20:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 21:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-14 21:35 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 21:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 01:14 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-16 10:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-16 12:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-16 14:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-16 15:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 01:13 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 13:04 -0700
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 21:43 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 15:15 -0700
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 23:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-14 17:26 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 02:30 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 10:18 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-15 10:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 11:50 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-15 12:03 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 13:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-15 16:53 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 17:51 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-16 10:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-16 12:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-17 12:07 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-17 14:25 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-17 16:32 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-17 17:10 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-18 09:53 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-18 10:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-18 11:48 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-25 06:11 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-18 14:22 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-18 16:27 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-18 20:16 +0200
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-19 13:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-18 16:36 +0000
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-17 17:29 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-18 09:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-17 13:14 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 21:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 21:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 22:22 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-15 23:08 +0000
Re: Python recompile tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-03-16 08:42 +0100
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-16 08:02 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-16 11:04 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-16 23:13 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 02:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-15 01:11 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-14 19:18 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-16 01:58 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-08 10:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-08 15:51 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-08 16:46 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 23:02 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-09 15:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 00:55 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 11:21 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 07:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 13:49 +0200
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-12 06:56 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-09 08:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-09 11:43 +0200
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-09 12:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 21:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-09 22:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-11 00:57 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 11:43 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-11 13:59 +0200
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-11 13:47 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-13 14:41 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-09 21:52 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-10 08:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-10 13:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-10 11:45 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-10 17:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 18:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-11 03:38 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-08 13:14 -0800
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-08 22:59 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 16:55 -0700
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 01:40 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 19:09 -0700
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Python recompile Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 21:35 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-09 16:14 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-10 23:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 21:26 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-07 21:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 22:17 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-10 14:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 03:16 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-04 19:12 -0500
Re: Python recompile gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-03 23:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:29 -0500
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 16:52 -0500
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:19 +0000
Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 13:33 -0500
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 19:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile geodandw <geodandw@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 18:51 -0500
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 00:49 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 02:29 +0000
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-04 09:12 +0100
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 11:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muffley@DinkyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 12:00 +0000
Re: Python recompile Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-04 15:31 +0200
Re: Python recompile David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-03 18:28 +0100
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-04 08:33 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2025-03-04 10:19 +0100
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 18:06 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Loris Bennett" <loris.bennett@fu-berlin.de> - 2025-03-05 07:58 +0100
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 07:09 +0000
Re: Python recompile Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-05 18:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 02:22 +0000
Re: Python recompile Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2025-03-06 07:35 +0100
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-06 07:32 +0000
Re: Python recompile Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-06 08:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-06 12:40 -0800
Re: Python recompile Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Python recompile "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 12:36 -0800
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-07 13:17 -0500
Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 16:12 +0000
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-02 17:54 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-02 19:15 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 13:38 -0500
Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:42 +0000
Re: Python recompile doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2025-03-03 00:46 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-02 22:24 -0500
Re: Python recompile antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-03 17:20 +0000
Re: Python recompile Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 17:28 +0000
Re: Python recompile James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-03 12:57 -0500
Re: Python recompile scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 18:02 +0000
Re: Python recompile bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 19:37 +0000
Re: Python recompile Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-03 17:59 -0800
Re: Python recompile Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 05:46 +0000
Page 13 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 21 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-13 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864izwtxs4.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391125 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > The reason for half the UBs is because some operation is badly defined > on whacko architecture which accounts for 0.00001% of machines. Demonstrably false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-13 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqvq2d$406q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391125 |
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:16:00 +0000, bart wrote: > Yet when it comes to *building* software, which is just another kind of > application, then apparently only Unix-like exists. Yeah, funny that, that systems that adhere to something resembling an official, open standard are easier to support than ones that don’t. If other systems are important enough to be worth supporting, why is it nobody who uses those systems has the skills and the patience to step forward and do it? Could it be that those systems, being proprietary, are designed by their owners to be inherently hostile in some way to open-source development?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqs9dt$2ltal$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391092 |
On 12/03/2025 14:58, David Brown wrote: > On 12/03/2025 12:14, bart wrote: >> On 12/03/2025 10:37, David Brown wrote: >>> On 11/03/2025 22:18, bart wrote: >> >>>> I needed support for big numbers in my interpreter. My product is >>>> well-integrated, and represents 5% of the 250KB interpreter size. >>>> The above gmp DLL is 666KB so is a poor match. >>>> >>> >>> Out of curiosity - how often are such big numbers needed and used >>> with your interpreter, excluding demos to show how to use big >>> numbers? 64-bit arithmetic is enough for the huge majority of >>> purposes outside of cryptography and mathematics, and 128-bit >>> arithmetic covers almost all of the rest. Your code is not suitable >>> for cryptography or mathematics. So what is it used for? And could >>> it have been handled much more simply by using 128-bit fixed sizes? >>> >> >> How often are big numbers used in Python? There, its integer type >> transparently overflows into a big integer when needed (so C-style >> algorithms that rely on being masked to 64 bits won't work). >> > > I'd imagine they are not often used, as a proportion of Python users, > and that 128-bit integers would be more than good enough in most > situations. However, Python /is/ used in mathematics work, and big > numbers are useful there. And Python numbers are, like everything in > Python, objects - each number is already a memory allocation, a struct, > a reference to a shared object. There's a lot of overhead even for a > simple integer. That means there is little extra cost for having the > possibility of big numbers if the user wants them. Similarly, the rest > of Python is so large that the incremental cost for using shared GMP > libraries (which are likely already installed on many systems) is minor. > And of course Python is used by millions - including people who > regularly need large integers. Your interpreter is used by you. > > So again, how often do /you/ need big numbers in /your/ language? > > > (I'm not sure what you are talking about with "C-style algorithms that > rely on being masked to 64-bits". Are you suggesting that if badly > written C code is translated directly into bad Python code, it might not > work?) It might be code like this where the top bits of left-shifts disappear: z = ((Q[i]<<41)>>1)+((Q[i]<<39)>>1)+(carry>>1); >> In the end I dropped 128-bit numbers, because the only use-case, apart >> from bragging about it, was supporting 128 bits in the self-hosted >> compiler. > > Whereas in your interpreted language, the only reason for having > anything bigger than 64-bits seems to be for bragging about it. If you > think that is worth the effort, that's fine - I've nothing against doing > something like this for the fun of it. But it seems strange to get so > worked up about how the GMP authors are forcing you to use dependencies > you don't want, and forcing you to write your own bignum code, when all > you really want is to be able to tell your users - you alone - that you > support bignums so that you can calculate 2 ^ 128 and fib(92). It's a > lot of effort, and a lot of aggravation, for extremely little use. I see. So the real reason for your apparently friendly interest comes to light. It is just to trash everything I do and to be as condescending as hell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 17:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vqseac$2mp5t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391094 |
On 12/03/2025 16:32, bart wrote: > On 12/03/2025 14:58, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/03/2025 12:14, bart wrote: >>> On 12/03/2025 10:37, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 11/03/2025 22:18, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> I needed support for big numbers in my interpreter. My product is >>>>> well-integrated, and represents 5% of the 250KB interpreter size. >>>>> The above gmp DLL is 666KB so is a poor match. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Out of curiosity - how often are such big numbers needed and used >>>> with your interpreter, excluding demos to show how to use big >>>> numbers? 64-bit arithmetic is enough for the huge majority of >>>> purposes outside of cryptography and mathematics, and 128-bit >>>> arithmetic covers almost all of the rest. Your code is not suitable >>>> for cryptography or mathematics. So what is it used for? And >>>> could it have been handled much more simply by using 128-bit fixed >>>> sizes? >>>> >>> >>> How often are big numbers used in Python? There, its integer type >>> transparently overflows into a big integer when needed (so C-style >>> algorithms that rely on being masked to 64 bits won't work). >>> >> >> I'd imagine they are not often used, as a proportion of Python users, >> and that 128-bit integers would be more than good enough in most >> situations. However, Python /is/ used in mathematics work, and big >> numbers are useful there. And Python numbers are, like everything in >> Python, objects - each number is already a memory allocation, a >> struct, a reference to a shared object. There's a lot of overhead >> even for a simple integer. That means there is little extra cost for >> having the possibility of big numbers if the user wants them. >> Similarly, the rest of Python is so large that the incremental cost >> for using shared GMP libraries (which are likely already installed on >> many systems) is minor. And of course Python is used by millions - >> including people who regularly need large integers. Your interpreter >> is used by you. >> >> So again, how often do /you/ need big numbers in /your/ language? >> >> >> (I'm not sure what you are talking about with "C-style algorithms that >> rely on being masked to 64-bits". Are you suggesting that if badly >> written C code is translated directly into bad Python code, it might >> not work?) > > It might be code like this where the top bits of left-shifts disappear: > > z = ((Q[i]<<41)>>1)+((Q[i]<<39)>>1)+(carry>>1); > Okay... and how often would this cause trouble for Python code? And why is it specific for 64 bits? > >>> In the end I dropped 128-bit numbers, because the only use-case, >>> apart from bragging about it, was supporting 128 bits in the >>> self-hosted compiler. >> >> Whereas in your interpreted language, the only reason for having >> anything bigger than 64-bits seems to be for bragging about it. If >> you think that is worth the effort, that's fine - I've nothing against >> doing something like this for the fun of it. But it seems strange to >> get so worked up about how the GMP authors are forcing you to use >> dependencies you don't want, and forcing you to write your own bignum >> code, when all you really want is to be able to tell your users - you >> alone - that you support bignums so that you can calculate 2 ^ 128 and >> fib(92). It's a lot of effort, and a lot of aggravation, for >> extremely little use. > > I see. So the real reason for your apparently friendly interest comes to > light. It is just to trash everything I do and to be as condescending as > hell. > > I am merely trying to understand you (as well as helping you - providing links to the dlls you could not find yourself). I fully understand the fun of making your own bignum code - or of adding bignum support to your interpreted language. I do not understand the effort you go to complaining, blaming others, and making your own life more difficult. I do not understand any thoughts that this is somehow a useful expenditure of time and effort.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqsp3u$2pfdp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391086 |
On 3/12/2025 3:37 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 11/03/2025 22:18, bart wrote: >> On 11/03/2025 20:20, David Brown wrote: >>> On 11/03/2025 18:47, bart wrote: >> >>>>> <https://packages.msys2.org/packages/mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-gmp> >>>>> <https://packages.msys2.org/packages/mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-libffi> >>>>> >>>>> The compressed tarballs include the dlls. >>>> >>>> I downloaded a couple of large files, including mingw64-x86_64- >>>> gmp-6.3.0-1-src.tar, but found no trace of any DLL files. >>> >>> You downloaded the source tarballs, and are surprised to find they >>> contain source files - not binaries? Did the abbreviation "src" not >>> give you a clue? >> >> You said the 'tarballs include the dlls'. I associate tarballs with >> source code, so I was mildly surprised, but I looked anyway. The other >> file was mingw-packages.master.zip, but it would have taken forever to >> unzip the lot looking for one file that probably wasn't there. >> > > A tarball is just a bunch of files collected together. It can be > anything - not just source code. > > There also seems to be a variety of binary packages for gmp, from the > base package at <https://packages.msys2.org/base/mingw-w64-gmp> . These > might be more or less appropriate, depending on the other libraries or > toolchains in use. > > >> >>> >>> Try the link that is labelled "File:" - it is the msys2/mingw-w64 >>> tarball with libgmp-10.dll and all the other files shown in the list >>> at the bottom of the page, under "Files:". >> >> So: https://mirror.msys2.org/mingw/ucrt64/mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64- >> gmp-6.3.0-2-any.pkg.tar.zst, obviously. >> > > Yes. > > >> >>>> Meanwhile here is the library *I* had to use instead: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/sal55/langs/tree/master/bignum >>>> >>> >>> It is not exactly comparable, is it? >> >> No. Mine was available when I needed it a decade or so ago. GMP dlls >> were everywhere, mostly on dodgy-looking sites but every one was >> different. Then you had the job of finding a matching gmp.h file. > > Based on the "view changes" page, the msys2 GMP binaries have been > around since about 2013. (Again, I have no idea of their suitability or > compatibility for your needs.) And the package contains a gmp.h file. > > I am happy to believe that it is easier to get such packages now than it > was a decade ago - I had no interest in searching for them at that time, > and no interest in them now. If I need to use GMP on Windows, I can > just install it with msys2 (in fact I see it is already installed on my > Windows system). Before msys2, I could have got it from msys or Cygwin. > Someone else has already done the work of porting and compiling to > make it work on Windows - why would I bother trying to duplicate that > effort? > >> >>> If all you need is some simple arithmetic done in a naïve school long >>> multiplication way, then the code is fine. >> >> I needed support for big numbers in my interpreter. My product is >> well-integrated, and represents 5% of the 250KB interpreter size. The >> above gmp DLL is 666KB so is a poor match. >> > > Out of curiosity - how often are such big numbers needed and used with > your interpreter, excluding demos to show how to use big numbers? 64-bit > arithmetic is enough for the huge majority of purposes outside of > cryptography and mathematics, and 128-bit arithmetic covers almost all > of the rest. Your code is not suitable for cryptography or mathematics. > So what is it used for? And could it have been handled much more > simply by using 128-bit fixed sizes? > Fwiw, deep zooms on fractals is one reason why I use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wf2AP.458546$2zn8.451764@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #391027 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 11/03/2025 17:09, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/03/2025 17:23, bart wrote: >> <https://packages.msys2.org/packages/mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-gmp> >> <https://packages.msys2.org/packages/mingw-w64-ucrt-x86_64-libffi> >> >> The compressed tarballs include the dlls. > >I downloaded a couple of large files, including >mingw64-x86_64-gmp-6.3.0-1-src.tar, but found no trace of any DLL files. Why would you expect an archive with 'src' in the name to have a DLL file?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 19:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250311193420.00003118@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391023 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:23:25 +0000 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I > can can use on Windows. > May be, here? https://github.com/ShiftMediaProject/gmp/releases Of course, nobody tested them with compilers others than Microsoft's so success with tcc is not guaranteed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqq9b9$262gq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391023 |
On 3/11/2025 9:23 AM, bart wrote: > On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote: >>> >>> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C >>> compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, >>> MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing their Linux >>> dependencies down my throat. >>> >>> >>> Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict their >>> choices on other people, especially those using other OSes. >>> >> >> I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. But I am curious >> here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their code? > > OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can > can use on Windows. If that's not possible then there is no choice > (other than not to use them at all, which is what I do).[...] FWIW, vcpkg can build them all for you and optionally integrate them directly into MSVC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 11:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250312110813.00003b19@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391038 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:18:32 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/11/2025 9:23 AM, bart wrote: > > On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote: > >> On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote: > >>> > >>> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C > >>> compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use > >>> CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing > >>> their Linux dependencies down my throat. > >>> > >>> > >>> Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict > >>> their choices on other people, especially those using other OSes. > >>> > >> > >> I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. But I am > >> curious here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their > >> code? > > > > OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I > > can can use on Windows. If that's not possible then there is no > > choice (other than not to use them at all, which is what I > > do).[...] > > FWIW, vcpkg can build them all for you and optionally integrate them > directly into MSVC. You can not convince Bart to use Visual Studio Build Tools, with or without vcpkg. He sees it aa heresy of similar proportion to installation of msys2 and systematic use pacman package manager. That is, he can install either, but only for sake of complaining (rightly) that the thing is bloated out of proportion. Any other usage considered surrender to forces of evil.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqsp13$2pfdp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391081 |
On 3/12/2025 2:08 AM, Michael S wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:18:32 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/11/2025 9:23 AM, bart wrote: >>> On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote: >>>>> >>>>> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C >>>>> compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use >>>>> CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing >>>>> their Linux dependencies down my throat. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict >>>>> their choices on other people, especially those using other OSes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. But I am >>>> curious here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their >>>> code? >>> >>> OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I >>> can can use on Windows. If that's not possible then there is no >>> choice (other than not to use them at all, which is what I >>> do).[...] >> >> FWIW, vcpkg can build them all for you and optionally integrate them >> directly into MSVC. > > You can not convince Bart to use Visual Studio Build Tools, with or > without vcpkg. > He sees it aa heresy of similar proportion to installation of msys2 > and systematic use pacman package manager. > That is, he can install either, but only for sake of complaining > (rightly) that the thing is bloated out of proportion. Any other usage > considered surrender to forces of evil. > To each their own. ;^) Wrt vcpkg, well, so far it's fairly nice and rather convenient indeed, for me... It used various tools to compile packages, mingw, cygwin, ect... The fun part is that it actually worked! Pretty nice for Windows, eh? lol. :^) To compile all of those on windows can be a bitch, from time to time. So, I would say vcpkg is a decent start...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 21:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <O72AP.458545$2zn8.112829@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #391023 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote: >>> >>> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C >>> compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, >>> MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing their Linux >>> dependencies down my throat. >>> >>> >>> Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict their >>> choices on other people, especially those using other OSes. >>> >> >> I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. But I am curious >> here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their code? > >OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can >can use on Windows. Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of those libraries, mostly working for free, make the source available for for free. They are required to make -your- life easy. Here's a thought - why don't you write your own multiprecision library and release it as open source? > >It would make everyone's life easier. Highly doubtful, most projects are far more complex than your simple single-source file world. > >Windows is getting an unfairly bad reputation for building applications; Because we've used it, and it sucks? > What choices are those? To have to supply, with a multi-MB source > download, a text file listing the files I have to submit to the compiler? Pretty much every open source project out there, particularly those with large source-bases actually provide a text file listing the files you need to compile. It's called "Makefile". > Would it really be that onerous? Such a file would also work on Linux > and save everyone a lot of time. Indeed, Makefiles save everyone a lot of time. Further repetative complaints elided.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 22:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqqd61$267fp$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391043 |
On 11/03/2025 21:43, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 11/03/2025 15:06, David Brown wrote: >>> On 11/03/2025 15:24, bart wrote: >>>> >>>> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C >>>> compiler. I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, >>>> MSYS2 or WSL because the developers insist on forcing their Linux >>>> dependencies down my throat. >>>> >>>> >>>> Developers can do what they like. But they shouldn't inflict their >>>> choices on other people, especially those using other OSes. >>>> >>> >>> I have not paid a lot of attention to this thread. But I am curious >>> here - who do you think is /forcing/ you to compile their code? >> >> OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can >> can use on Windows. > > Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of those > libraries, mostly working for free, make the source available for > for free. They are required to make -your- life easy. I'm not complaining about the quality of the library. Only about packaging of the source code. They might be whiz numerologists and C programmers, but the build process sucks. > > Here's a thought - why don't you write your own multiprecision > library and release it as open source? I did. It's only a simple one, but it will do the job, just much more slowly if precision gets too high. https://github.com/sal55/langs/tree/master/bignum > Highly doubtful, most projects are far more complex than your > simple single-source file world. Are they? The GMP DLL I finally saw is only 660KB, roughly 70Kloc. That is not huge. >> Windows is getting an unfairly bad reputation for building applications; > > Because we've used it, and it sucks? And I've used your build systems, and *they* suck. Or does only your opinion count? > >> What choices are those? To have to supply, with a multi-MB source >> download, a text file listing the files I have to submit to the compiler? > > Pretty much every open source project out there, particularly those with > large source-bases actually provide a text file listing the files you > need to compile. It's called "Makefile". Sure. And next week's winning lottery numbers are contained within this file too: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-12 01:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250312011554.00006e10@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #391048 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 22:24:01 +0000 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > > Are they? The GMP DLL I finally saw is only 660KB, roughly 70Kloc. > That is not huge. > gmp.dll that I tried minutes ago is 403,968 bytes. Static library libgmp.lib is a lot bigger - 4,515,340 bytes. I have no idea about the reasons of the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871pv3goh0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391043 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can
>>can use on Windows.
>
> Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of those
> libraries, mostly working for free, make the source available for
> for free. They are required to make -your- life easy.
>
> Here's a thought - why don't you write your own multiprecision
> library and release it as open source?
[...]
Or he could take a copy of GMP and modify it so it builds more easily on
Windows and release that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqqjei$286h8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391056 |
On 3/11/2025 4:02 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >>> OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can >>> can use on Windows. >> >> Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of those >> libraries, mostly working for free, make the source available for >> for free. They are required to make -your- life easy. >> >> Here's a thought - why don't you write your own multiprecision >> library and release it as open source? > [...] > > Or he could take a copy of GMP and modify it so it builds more easily on > Windows and release that. > vcpkg builds GMP wrt MSVC. I think it uses other tools as well, Mingw, cygwin, ect. But, well, luckily it worked for me. https://vcpkg.io/en/ GMP is a supported package at version: 6.3.0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 17:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vqqkgm$28ff0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391059 |
On 3/11/2025 5:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 3/11/2025 4:02 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>>> OK, tell me where to get ready-made DLLs for GMP and LIBFFI that I can >>>> can use on Windows. >>> >>> Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of those >>> libraries, mostly working for free, make the source available for >>> for free. They are required to make -your- life easy. >>> >>> Here's a thought - why don't you write your own multiprecision >>> library and release it as open source? >> [...] >> >> Or he could take a copy of GMP and modify it so it builds more easily on >> Windows and release that. >> > > vcpkg builds GMP wrt MSVC. I think it uses other tools as well, Mingw, > cygwin, ect. But, well, luckily it worked for me. > > https://vcpkg.io/en/ > > GMP is a supported package at version: 6.3.0 Actually, ver: 6.3.0#2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ldtaubj2.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391043 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Why do you think anybody owes you anything? The developers of > [open source] libraries, mostly working for free, make the source > available for for free. They are required to make -your- life > easy. If they are required to make my life easy they aren't doing a very good job. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqq6tp$25gtn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391019 |
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:24:15 +0000, bart wrote:
> On 11/03/2025 01:33, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> You apparently do not get fact that people want tools to automate
>> various routine tasks.
>
> What routine task is this? I'm talking exclusively about turning a bunch
> of source files in some language (here it is C) into an executable
> binary.
Interesting that you don’t see an app build as a “routine task”.
Think of how often, while developing a program in (at least partly) a
compiled a language, you have to go through
edit → build → run → crash
ad nauseam.
This is why we have makefiles, because usually the whole source does not
need to be recompiled each time, only the parts that have changed since
the last run.
> However, what I'm arguing about is that this simple task has become
> unnecessarily elaborate on OSes like Linux, by introducing makefiles,
> OS-specific scripts, and OS-specific utilities.
And yet all that automation makes it quite easy to build quite complex
apps on Linux. You were the one who had trouble on Windows.
> If scripts are going to be used, then use them at the developer site
> only, and make the script generate the streamlined set of files for the
> particular platform of interest.
Funny, that’s how Autotools works (generating the configure script from
the much more human-readable configure.ac source), and yet you were
complaining about what an unreadable blob it produced.
> It should not rely on anything that is not native to the target
> platform.
Unfortunately that rules out developing for Windows completely, since
there is essentially nothing development-related that is native to
Windows. Everything has to be added on.
> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C compiler.
> I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL
> because the developers insist on forcing their Linux dependencies down
> my throat.
Beggars can’t be choosers. As long as you don’t have the skills or
patience to actually contribute to such development, you have to accept
what you get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 22:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vqqbtt$267fp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391035 |
On 11/03/2025 20:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:24:15 +0000, bart wrote: > >> On 11/03/2025 01:33, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> >>> You apparently do not get fact that people want tools to automate >>> various routine tasks. >> >> What routine task is this? I'm talking exclusively about turning a bunch >> of source files in some language (here it is C) into an executable >> binary. > > Interesting that you don’t see an app build as a “routine task”. > > Think of how often, while developing a program in (at least partly) a > compiled a language, you have to go through > > edit → build → run → crash > > ad nauseam. > > This is why we have makefiles, because usually the whole source does not > need to be recompiled each time, only the parts that have changed since > the last run. That has never, ever been a problem. In the past, using independent compilation, because I was familiar with what need to be recompiled (altough a full build was only seconds anyway). And now a full build is more or less instant using my own tools. For me, independent compilation (of the modules of one binary) is old hat. Linking is old hat (whatever it does, I replaced it in about 1983). You have machines now that are 1000 times faster than what I was using, and yet compilation time is still be an issue unless you use all these tricks? Apparently the answer is to pile on more layers of complexity, that'll speed it up! (Hint: if your car can only do 3mph, then you need to get a faster car, not either look for short cuts, or avoid going anywhere.) > >> However, what I'm arguing about is that this simple task has become >> unnecessarily elaborate on OSes like Linux, by introducing makefiles, >> OS-specific scripts, and OS-specific utilities. > > And yet all that automation makes it quite easy to build quite complex > apps on Linux. You were the one who had trouble on Windows. > >> If scripts are going to be used, then use them at the developer site >> only, and make the script generate the streamlined set of files for the >> particular platform of interest. > > Funny, that’s how Autotools works (generating the configure script from > the much more human-readable configure.ac source), and yet you were > complaining about what an unreadable blob it produced. The output would be something like this, to build a standalone Lua.exe on Windows for example: gcc -O3 -o lua lua.c lapi.c lcode.c lctype.c ldebug.c ldo.c ldump.c lfunc.c lgc.c llex.c lmem.c lobject.c lopcodes.c lparser.c lstate.c lstring.c ltable.c ltm.c lundump.c lvm.c lzio.c lauxlib.c lbaselib.c lcorolib.c ldblib.c liolib.c lmathlib.c loadlib.c loslib.c lstrlib.c ltablib.c lutf8lib.c linit.c -lm -ldl >> It should not rely on anything that is not native to the target >> platform. > > Unfortunately that rules out developing for Windows completely, since > there is essentially nothing development-related that is native to > Windows. Everything has to be added on. You have to assume a compiler, since this is not bundled with source code anyway. Then, what else is there that is not source code? >> To build open source projects, I'm happy to use an existing C compiler. >> I'm NOT happy about bending over backwards to use CYGWIN, MSYS2 or WSL >> because the developers insist on forcing their Linux dependencies down >> my throat. > > Beggars can’t be choosers. As long as you don’t have the skills or > patience to actually contribute to such development, you have to accept > what you get. Have you actually tried it? I mean what I suggested in taking a project, and extracting the most basic steps. Like the invocation of gcc above. You might start questioning all this pointless complexity yourself. There's actually something magical about that gcc invocation: it works on both Windows and Linux. Pretty amazing, yes? (OK, I had to add the '-lm -ldl' bits.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-11 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wX3AP.231788$FVcd.224600@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #391046 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 11/03/2025 20:37, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:24:15 +0000, bart wrote: >> >>> On 11/03/2025 01:33, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>> >>>> You apparently do not get fact that people want tools to automate >>>> various routine tasks. >>> >>> What routine task is this? I'm talking exclusively about turning a bunch >>> of source files in some language (here it is C) into an executable >>> binary. >> >> Interesting that you don’t see an app build as a “routine task”. >> >> Think of how often, while developing a program in (at least partly) a >> compiled a language, you have to go through >> >> edit → build → run → crash >> >> ad nauseam. >> >> This is why we have makefiles, because usually the whole source does not >> need to be recompiled each time, only the parts that have changed since >> the last run. > >That has never, ever been a problem. For you, perhaps. For real world large codebases, it's a huge win. In my case, it could cost an hour[*] everytime a small change is made to recompile the entire project, versus a few seconds to recompile a single file. But you've been trolling on this meme for years now. [*] Parallel make reduces that to about 15 minutes on a 64-core xeon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web