Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #170696 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-12 07:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-23 03:32 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 968 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-12 07:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 01:37 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-13 10:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 04:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-13 05:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.org.invalid> - 2023-07-13 14:10 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-13 17:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-13 18:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-13 19:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-13 20:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-13 22:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-14 00:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 06:43 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-14 11:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 11:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 13:52 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:08 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:35 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 14:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-15 16:36 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 15:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 01:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 16:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 05:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-16 16:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 07:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 09:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-16 10:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-16 20:55 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 01:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 02:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 03:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 14:54 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 07:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 17:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-21 00:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 16:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 17:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 09:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-17 15:10 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-17 18:46 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-20 20:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-20 19:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-20 22:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 19:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 16:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 21:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 23:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-17 08:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 09:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 00:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 13:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 17:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 09:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 01:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 23:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 15:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 00:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 01:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 02:20 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-18 02:12 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-18 03:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 09:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 02:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 09:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 12:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 14:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 16:33 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 16:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 16:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 19:44 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-07-18 12:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 14:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 16:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 17:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 09:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 03:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 06:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 01:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 03:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 04:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 15:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 23:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 16:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 00:24 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:50 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 22:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 09:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 13:33 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 02:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 18:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 11:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 03:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 12:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 15:05 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 14:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 16:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 16:40 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 18:56 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 20:26 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 21:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 18:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-22 20:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 23:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 15:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 21:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 11:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 04:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 19:05 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 00:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 01:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-23 13:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 15:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 17:54 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 17:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 11:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 20:15 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 20:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 09:50 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-24 10:58 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 06:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-24 14:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-24 18:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-05 10:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 18:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 18:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 20:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-06 01:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-14 04:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 18:22 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-25 19:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 00:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 16:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 00:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 21:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 20:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 21:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 02:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 17:36 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 05:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 20:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:34 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-12 10:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 16:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-15 13:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-15 14:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-25 20:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:19 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 14:52 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-21 16:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 18:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-22 21:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:11 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-23 00:45 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 17:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 17:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-23 16:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 10:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 07:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-23 22:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 14:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 23:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-24 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 02:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 17:37 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-24 16:19 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-24 20:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 02:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-25 10:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-25 16:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-25 16:22 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-25 17:40 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 02:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 11:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 06:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 01:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 01:55 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 03:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 11:50 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-27 02:50 +0000
Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 16:43 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 19:15 +0200
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour (WAS: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-25 18:43 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:03 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:10 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 21:51 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 22:07 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-26 21:55 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 22:26 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 17:26 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 01:38 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-13 14:53 +0300
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 13:07 +0100
What's wrong? The phrasing, that's what! (Was: Overflow and undefined behaviour) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-08-13 13:16 +0000
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-13 16:25 +0100
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-14 12:10 +0300
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-14 04:33 -0700
Re: Overflow and undefined behaviour Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-14 14:56 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-25 17:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-25 20:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-28 02:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-24 22:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-24 09:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 14:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-26 07:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 07:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 16:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 15:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 19:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 18:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-26 22:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 13:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 05:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 15:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 06:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 16:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 07:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-27 20:45 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-04 00:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 18:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-05 06:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 14:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-27 16:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 17:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 09:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 19:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 18:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 15:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 15:41 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 16:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 17:50 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-01 17:04 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 18:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-01 18:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 19:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 17:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 21:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 03:41 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 12:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-02 17:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 23:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 15:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 11:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 02:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 17:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 08:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 18:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-05 13:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 05:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 17:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 16:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 10:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 17:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 10:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 18:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 00:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 20:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 13:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 05:32 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 05:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 05:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 14:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 13:44 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) - 2023-08-09 14:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 15:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 07:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 08:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 15:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 16:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 17:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 21:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 09:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 00:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 17:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 17:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 13:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 17:51 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 16:01 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2023-08-15 23:11 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:48 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 23:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 17:58 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-02 19:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 22:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 02:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 02:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 15:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 17:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 18:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-05 23:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 00:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 00:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 11:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 17:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-06 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 23:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 15:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 23:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 17:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 01:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 18:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 10:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 07:41 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 04:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 14:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 16:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 08:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 17:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 09:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 00:51 +0100
Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-10 15:38 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 16:35 +0100
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:31 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 11:13 -0700
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:26 +0000
Re: Making accountants cross (wa Re: you think rust may outthrone c?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 11:30 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 17:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 18:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 21:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-07 23:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:21 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 04:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:22 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 09:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 18:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 21:58 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 05:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 13:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 08:55 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 18:23 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 15:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 18:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 00:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 06:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 15:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 08:35 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 02:44 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-09 05:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 16:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-08-07 13:10 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 10:24 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:46 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 14:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 01:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 17:59 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 11:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:34 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 14:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 23:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 22:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 23:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-09 04:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 14:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-03 17:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 18:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-03 02:12 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 20:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 23:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 15:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 07:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 07:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-04 17:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-04 13:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 15:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 17:05 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 22:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 17:46 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-04 21:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 00:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 00:15 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 01:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 02:11 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 11:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-06 16:50 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 18:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 00:31 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-04 22:44 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 10:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 07:53 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 11:53 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-06 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-04 19:50 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 02:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-05 14:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-05 17:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-06 07:56 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-06 13:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 14:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 16:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 16:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 17:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-07 14:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 05:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-07 22:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-07 22:19 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-07 22:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-08-08 05:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 22:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 18:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-08 16:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 00:37 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 18:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 10:32 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 19:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 03:59 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-08-08 08:40 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 12:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-04 18:00 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-04 19:25 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 13:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 04:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 14:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 06:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-08 15:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 08:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 02:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 12:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 15:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:11 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 15:49 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 21:05 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 09:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 16:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 16:42 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-08 18:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 10:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 17:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 10:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-09 03:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 19:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 11:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 11:58 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:29 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-08-09 11:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 13:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 14:32 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 15:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 15:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 16:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-09 15:52 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 18:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-12 10:36 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 02:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 08:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 07:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 07:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-13 08:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:10 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 00:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:08 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-13 03:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 06:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 15:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:36 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-13 03:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-12 12:12 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 09:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 18:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 20:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 20:40 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 04:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-14 15:52 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-14 16:06 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:19 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:33 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 15:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-15 15:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-11 08:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 11:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 10:50 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 13:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 13:32 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-11 07:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 15:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 16:45 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 10:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 20:33 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 22:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 22:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-08-11 23:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-12 00:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 21:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 13:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 14:55 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 21:38 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 22:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-12 12:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 15:34 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 15:39 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 17:26 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 16:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 18:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 19:43 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-13 09:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-13 16:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-13 17:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:37 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 16:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 17:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 16:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2023-08-11 10:05 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2023-08-09 15:06 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 16:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-10 09:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 10:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-09 15:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-10 00:15 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 00:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:27 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 00:01 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 00:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 17:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 00:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 02:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 02:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 22:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:23 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 19:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:24 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:21 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 03:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:18 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 15:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:15 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 10:12 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2023-08-10 17:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 10:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 17:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 18:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 14:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 14:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 23:17 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 16:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 01:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 17:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 07:47 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-11 16:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:28 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 08:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 09:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 23:09 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 01:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 05:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 06:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-11 13:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-11 19:41 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 08:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 11:14 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 17:39 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 17:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 14:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-15 13:52 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-15 14:40 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:26 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-15 15:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 10:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 07:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 16:33 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-08-10 16:57 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 01:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 16:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-10 09:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-10 18:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-08-10 21:04 +0100
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 20:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-10 14:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 10:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 18:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-09 23:14 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-08 19:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 15:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 00:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 23:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 17:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-09 02:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 19:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 16:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may *DE*throne c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-08 14:03 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-28 23:35 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 19:21 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-29 21:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 00:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-29 11:19 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-29 13:47 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-29 15:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-29 16:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-29 15:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 14:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-27 14:07 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-27 16:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-01 19:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 18:37 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 22:16 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-01 21:53 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-01 23:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-08-02 01:54 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 11:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 18:23 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-02 19:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-03 11:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-08-03 11:54 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-08-02 18:12 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 14:45 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-26 15:02 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 17:08 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:38 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 09:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:29 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-22 21:04 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 14:38 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 07:00 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:31 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 14:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 10:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 03:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 12:07 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 15:15 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 17:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 19:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:28 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 16:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 17:06 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 20:39 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:21 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 15:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-19 23:31 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:53 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 01:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 09:51 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 03:36 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-20 12:13 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-20 16:44 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-21 01:22 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:37 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-20 02:08 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:43 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 02:49 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:17 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-21 16:30 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 15:56 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 17:22 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-19 21:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 20:46 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-19 20:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-19 21:49 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "minf...@arcor.de" <minforth@arcor.de> - 2023-07-20 05:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 14:55 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-20 15:03 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 18:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 15:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:18 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-20 20:51 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-20 11:38 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 13:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-21 10:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 13:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-21 14:35 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-07-18 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 08:04 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 21:27 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 12:10 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 16:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-18 14:59 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 17:44 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-18 00:14 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-18 10:13 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:16 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 16:29 -0700
Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? (Was: you think rust may outthrone c?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 11:24 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 11:30 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:20 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:29 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 05:46 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:01 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:07 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:26 +0000
Why not? (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 13:32 +0000
Re: Why not? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:43 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 14:10 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 14:28 +0000
Re: Why not? (killfiles) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 18:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:52 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 02:21 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-14 09:14 -0400
Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 13:29 +0000
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-14 07:26 -0700
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 14:39 +0000
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:30 +0200
Re: Posting for our own amusement (Was: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point?) Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:53 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 06:30 -0700
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:30 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-07-14 12:29 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 12:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:46 +0000
Re: Yeah, C is harder than many programming languages. Your point? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:49 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-14 20:52 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 13:16 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 17:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 16:20 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 19:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 17:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2023-07-15 04:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 12:29 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 18:40 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 19:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 21:25 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:30 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 15:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 22:56 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 14:41 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 12:55 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 18:46 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 17:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-15 20:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 18:42 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-22 06:46 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-15 14:12 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 01:05 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-07-20 18:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-15 08:59 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-07-17 02:26 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-14 20:43 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 21:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 09:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-14 07:58 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-14 12:56 +0200
OT Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-14 10:20 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-14 20:48 +0800
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2023-07-17 18:33 +0300
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 20:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-17 21:14 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-07-17 21:47 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 18:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 17:00 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 20:03 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 20:28 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 11:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 19:18 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 12:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) - 2023-07-17 20:26 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 01:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-18 06:37 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 18:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 09:17 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 11:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 19:16 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 11:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 08:49 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 16:25 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:48 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 02:06 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:13 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:57 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:10 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:35 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 01:30 -0400
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 14:53 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:22 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:32 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 17:45 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:22 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 19:00 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 19:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2023-07-22 19:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:15 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:25 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:33 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:23 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:28 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 16:48 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:24 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-22 19:02 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 20:06 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:29 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 00:52 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 02:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 02:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 13:44 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 13:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:03 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:07 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:14 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:54 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:31 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 05:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 06:39 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:49 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2023-07-23 14:56 +0100
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:11 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2023-07-23 14:34 +0000
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-07-23 18:43 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:19 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:34 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:48 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:00 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:01 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:09 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:59 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:02 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:07 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:18 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:42 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:51 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:26 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:42 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:20 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:27 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 00:58 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 01:06 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 15:16 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 06:40 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:49 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:57 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 18:30 +0200
Re: you think rust may outthrone c? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 03:32 -0700
Page 3 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 49 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 03:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea263e0e-b936-43d2-a4b2-9fe62ccccce9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #170817 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
>
> > On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >
> >>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
> >>>
> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >>> uint32_t u;
> >>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
> >>> return u & 0x80000000;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >>> union {
> >>> uint32_t u;
> >>> float f;
> >>> } u;
> >>> u.f = f;
> >>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
> >> designated initialisers let one write
> >>
> >> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
> >
> > I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
> expression, the use of a union or something else?
> > Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
> > having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
> You can use
>
> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
>
> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
> initialiser:
>
> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
> > A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
> > need to go around the houses so much?
> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
> > Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
> >
> > (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
>
> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
>
It's got two main advantages. You don't need to create a union, which is a bit
messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
is ideal). And the C is likely a very close match for the assembler. If you've got
to use bitwise operations instead of comparing to zero with a relational operator
to get the sign, then it's quite likely you'll end up going to assembly at some
point.
This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
for choosing that option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 14:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u93dlc$158qe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170820 |
On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
>>>>>
>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
>>>>> return u & 0x80000000;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>> union {
>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>> float f;
>>>>> } u;
>>>>> u.f = f;
>>>>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
>>>> designated initialisers let one write
>>>>
>>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
>>>
>>> I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
>> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
>> expression, the use of a union or something else?
>>> Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
>>> having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
>> You can use
>>
>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
>>
>> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
>> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
>> initialiser:
>>
>> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
>>> A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
>>> need to go around the houses so much?
>> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
>> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
>>> Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
>>>
>>> (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
>>
>> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
>>
> It's got two main advantages.
It doesn't matter if it has a hundred advantages - your code has no
defined meaning, so it is wrong. That overrides all your (imagined)
advantages.
> You don't need to create a union, which is a bit
> messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
> in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
> is ideal).
Your code is messy too. It's okay for something as rarely needed as
this to be a bit verbose.
And what do you even mean by "create a union" ? Do you mean declaring a
union type? That has no runtime cost, and microscopic compile time
cost, so it is irrelevant. Do you mean creating an object of union type
at runtime? You should be able to figure out how often that is done by
Ben's code - it's basic C. I find it hard to see your complaint as
having any meaning, never mind any merit.
> And the C is likely a very close match for the assembler.
That myth was dispelled fifty years ago. C is not an assembler.
> If you've got
> to use bitwise operations instead of comparing to zero with a relational operator
> to get the sign, then it's quite likely you'll end up going to assembly at some
> point.
Complete and utter bollocks.
And even if it were true, why would "you might use assembly at some
point" have any bearing on the fact that it is a bad idea to write
incorrect code in C?
>
> This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
> would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
> for choosing that option.
>
The main reason people continue to write code like this is because
people like you continue to tell them it's a good idea. Please stop
doing so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f08cb1de-e0a2-4346-96b8-d154c39141e7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #170821 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 13:54:21 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
> >>>>>
> >>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >>>>> uint32_t u;
> >>>>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
> >>>>> return u & 0x80000000;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >>>>> union {
> >>>>> uint32_t u;
> >>>>> float f;
> >>>>> } u;
> >>>>> u.f = f;
> >>>>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
> >>>> designated initialisers let one write
> >>>>
> >>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
> >>>
> >>> I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
> >> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
> >> expression, the use of a union or something else?
> >>> Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
> >>> having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
> >> You can use
> >>
> >> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
> >>
> >> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
> >> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
> >> initialiser:
> >>
> >> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
> >>> A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
> >>> need to go around the houses so much?
> >> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
> >> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
> >>> Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
> >>>
> >>> (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
> >>
> >> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
> >>
> > It's got two main advantages.
> It doesn't matter if it has a hundred advantages - your code has no
> defined meaning, so it is wrong. That overrides all your (imagined)
> advantages.
>
Think of it as off-label usage. C doesn't allow bitwise operations on floats.
You're forcing it to do something it doesn't really want you to do, and so
of course you have to compromise on something.
>
> > You don't need to create a union, which is a bit
> > messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
> > in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
> > is ideal).
>
> And what do you even mean by "create a union" ?
>
If your English language skills are that low, then I can't help you.
> And even if it were true, why would "you might use assembly at some
> point" have any bearing on the fact that it is a bad idea to write
> incorrect code in C?
>
Because you write the incorrect code in C which nevertheless matches the
assembly very closely. Whilst the correct code which does the same thing
isn't as close a match. If you don't understand why that might be an advantage,
the again I can't really help you.
>
> > This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
> > would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
> > for choosing that option.
> >
> The main reason people continue to write code like this is because
> people like you continue to tell them it's a good idea. Please stop
> doing so.
>
No, the main reason is that it's an easy and convenient way to get at the sign bit
of a float. Which sometimes you might want to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 16:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u93k2s$196i8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170822 |
On 17/07/2023 16:08, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 13:54:21 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>>>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
>>>>>>> return u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>>>> union {
>>>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>>>> float f;
>>>>>>> } u;
>>>>>>> u.f = f;
>>>>>>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
>>>>>> designated initialisers let one write
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
>>>> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
>>>> expression, the use of a union or something else?
>>>>> Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
>>>>> having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
>>>> You can use
>>>>
>>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
>>>>
>>>> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
>>>> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
>>>> initialiser:
>>>>
>>>> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
>>>>> A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
>>>>> need to go around the houses so much?
>>>> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
>>>> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
>>>>> Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
>>>>>
>>>>> (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
>>>>
>>>> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
>>>>
>>> It's got two main advantages.
>> It doesn't matter if it has a hundred advantages - your code has no
>> defined meaning, so it is wrong. That overrides all your (imagined)
>> advantages.
>>
> Think of it as off-label usage. C doesn't allow bitwise operations on floats.
> You're forcing it to do something it doesn't really want you to do, and so
> of course you have to compromise on something.
You don't have to compromise on correctness!
C doesn't allow bitwaise operations directly on floats - that much is
true. But it /does/ allow you to get the underlying representation of a
float object. It provides two ways to do this - using type-punning
unions, and using char pointers (typified by using memcpy). It is truly
mind-boggling that someone would actively prefer to use an undefined and
dangerous hack instead of the safe and well-defined methods. If you
were a self-taught beginner at C programming, it would be an excusable
mistake until you learned better. But surely you understand by now -
accessing an object through an incompatible pointer type (other than a
char pointer) is undefined behaviour. Do not do that.
>>
>>> You don't need to create a union, which is a bit
>>> messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
>>> in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
>>> is ideal).
>>
>> And what do you even mean by "create a union" ?
>>
> If your English language skills are that low, then I can't help you.
>
My English comprehension is not the problem - your lax writing is.
"Create a union" does not make sense - do you mean declaring a union
type, or defining an instance of a union? Do you even know what you
meant when you wrote it?
>> And even if it were true, why would "you might use assembly at some
>> point" have any bearing on the fact that it is a bad idea to write
>> incorrect code in C?
>>
> Because you write the incorrect code in C which nevertheless matches the
> assembly very closely.
Find a blackboard, and write out 100 lines - "C is not assembly".
It does not matter how much the C code resembles assembly, Cobol, or
pink unicorns, incorrect C code is incorrect C code. It does not
magically become valid just because it looks like assembly!
> Whilst the correct code which does the same thing
> isn't as close a match. If you don't understand why that might be an advantage,
> the again I can't really help you.
I remember a kid at school who would rather leave an incorrect answer to
a maths question than rub it out and correct it, because that might
leave an ugly mark on his page. Needless to say, he failed maths.
Similarly, /you/ fail programming.
It is always good to make code clear and readable, but /correctness/
always trumps some bizarre notion of looking nice. It does not matter a
bugger if the code "looks like assembly" (not that that is remotely an
advantage - people program in C so they don't have to program in
assembly), if the code is /wrong/.
>>
>>> This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
>>> would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
>>> for choosing that option.
>>>
>> The main reason people continue to write code like this is because
>> people like you continue to tell them it's a good idea. Please stop
>> doing so.
>>
> No, the main reason is that it's an easy and convenient way to get at the sign bit
> of a float. Which sometimes you might want to do.
When you see a fellow programmer writing incorrect code - such as trying
to access an object through an incompatible pointer - you explain the
problem to them, and help them learn how to write the code correctly.
If necessary, you show them the C standards (section 6.5p7) But when
they insist that regardless of the code being correct or not, they
prefer writing it in a way they think is nicer, you have a quiet talk
with the boss.
Ignorance is easily curable. But such a cavalier attitude to
correctness is unprofessional. It's the kind of thing that gives our
profession a bad reputation - it's people writing hacks like that which
gives C code a reputation for being dangerous and buggy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 17:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bkgawlwp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #170823 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> ... But surely you understand by now - accessing an object
> through an incompatible pointer type (other than a char pointer) is
> undefined behaviour. Do not do that.
This is an aside, but since there may be people reading this getting
nervous, I thought it worth explaining that you are using a short hand
here. After all, there are lots of people who share Malcolm, Bart and
fir's assumption that *(int *)&f must "do what it says" and they might
want some more detail about what it actually permitted.
First, it's not really the type of the pointer that matters. What
matters is what is called the lvalue expression used to access an
object, which, when using a pointer p, will be something like *p or
p[n]. For example, given
float f, *fp = &f, *const fcp = &f;
fp and fcp are pointers with incompatible types, but f can be accessed
through both because the lvalue expressions *fp and *fcp have the exact
same type as the object, f, being accessed i.e. float.
Now, C's definition of compatible types is very strict. To a first
approximation, two type are only compatible if they are essentially the
same (there are exceptions but I won't go into all the gory details
here). This is way too strict to be useful for defining things like
assignment and other accesses which have more lax rules. Unfortunately
these other relationships don't have names, so people use "compatible"
as a shorthand.
The basic rule being discussed in this thread is that a value stored in
an object can only be accessed by an lvalue expression that has one of a
number of types closely related to what is called the effective type of
the object. The effective type is whole other topic, but for the
purposes of the this discussion, the effective type of an object is it's
declared type.
So, at last, the rules say that you can access the value in f with an
lvalue expression with a type that is
- float
- a qualified version of float
- a character type
- an array, struct or union type that includes (possibly recursively)
a member with one of these types
(There are other permited types for object that can have signed or
unsigned versions of the effective type, but floating types don't have
signed or unsigned variants.)
Since the type of *(int *)&f is int, and int is not on this list,
accessing f using the expression *(int *)&f is not permitted.
Note, however, that both *(char *)&f and ((char *)&f)[sizeof f - 1] are
permitted and give access either end of the float (though char could be
the same size as float in some odd architectures).
There should be a name for this relationship between types, like
"effectively compatible", but there isn't one in the language standard,
and I don't think there is on that is widely used. Maybe we could use
"effectively compatible"...
Similarly, you will see people talk about two types being "assignment
compatible" in order to refer to the related (but different) rules
covering assignment and argument passing. The standard itself even
refers to these rules in a number of places, but without a name for
them, it must reference "the constraints of 6.5.16.1" instead!
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-21 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86jzutvj6a.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #170828 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: [considering the rules for accessing an object of one type when using an lvalue of a different type]. > There should be a name for this relationship between types, like > "effectively compatible", but there isn't one in the language > standard, and I don't think there is on that is widely used. > Maybe we could use "effectively compatible"... I don't like "effectively compatible" for two reasons. One, the word "effectively" is commonly used with a different meaning, and that would confuse the issue. Two, the word "compatible" suggests a symmetric relationship, but the effective type rules are not symmetric, so "compatible" would be misleading, or at least confusing. > Similarly, you will see people talk about two types being > "assignment compatible" in order to refer to the related (but > different) rules covering assignment and argument passing. The > standard itself even refers to these rules in a number of > places, but without a name for them, it must reference "the > constraints of 6.5.16.1" instead! Here again "compatible" is a poor fit because the type rules for assignment are not symmetric. I might suggest, without thinking about it too deeply, "assignment permissible" as an adjective for describing the types on the right-hand side of an assignment. This phrase could be extended with a "for (left-hand-side type)" where needed, as for example "the type of the expression '*p' is not assignment permissible for an int* target".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-21 16:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tttxntx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #171015 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > > [considering the rules for accessing an object of one type > when using an lvalue of a different type]. > >> There should be a name for this relationship between types, like >> "effectively compatible", but there isn't one in the language >> standard, and I don't think there is on that is widely used. >> Maybe we could use "effectively compatible"... > > I don't like "effectively compatible" for two reasons. One, > the word "effectively" is commonly used with a different > meaning, and that would confuse the issue. Two, the word > "compatible" suggests a symmetric relationship, but the > effective type rules are not symmetric, so "compatible" > would be misleading, or at least confusing. > > >> Similarly, you will see people talk about two types being >> "assignment compatible" in order to refer to the related (but >> different) rules covering assignment and argument passing. The >> standard itself even refers to these rules in a number of >> places, but without a name for them, it must reference "the >> constraints of 6.5.16.1" instead! > > Here again "compatible" is a poor fit because the type rules > for assignment are not symmetric. I might suggest, without > thinking about it too deeply, "assignment permissible" as > an adjective for describing the types on the right-hand > side of an assignment. This phrase could be extended with > a "for (left-hand-side type)" where needed, as for example > "the type of the expression '*p' is not assignment permissible > for an int* target". I agree with your points, but as your last sentence demonstrates, the result is still messy. Since the intent was to find something informal that is better than the technically incorrect "compatible", I'd accept the possibility of some confusion. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 17:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <u93ppq$19ol1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170823 |
On 17/07/2023 15:43, David Brown wrote: > On 17/07/2023 16:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> Think of it as off-label usage. C doesn't allow bitwise operations on >> floats. >> You're forcing it to do something it doesn't really want you to do, >> and so >> of course you have to compromise on something. > > You don't have to compromise on correctness! > > C doesn't allow bitwaise operations directly on floats - that much is > true. But it /does/ allow you to get the underlying representation of a > float object. It provides two ways to do this - using type-punning > unions, That doesn't help when the object you want to alias exists elsewhere. It means pointless copying to a specially created union object. (In C, if the value being aliased is a transient value anyway, not stored in memory, then such copying is necessary. My language allows type-punning of such values without using memory, but may involve copying from one kind of register to another.) > and using char pointers (typified by using memcpy). It is truly > mind-boggling that someone would actively prefer to use an undefined and > dangerous hack Undefined and dangerous where, on some of your whacky hardware? Or is it only undefined and dangerous because your favourite compiler has seized on that UB label to do who knows what? >> No, the main reason is that it's an easy and convenient way to get at >> the sign bit >> of a float. Which sometimes you might want to do. > > When you see a fellow programmer writing incorrect code - such as trying > to access an object through an incompatible pointer You mean trying to access the same 4 bytes of memory through both a u32* pointer and an f32* pointer? Forgive me for not seeing the issue doing that on any machine I can buy today to try it out on. But how does memcpy manage it, just by converting the pointers to void*? Anyone directly accessing bit 31 of a float /by any means/, in the hope that it is the sign bit, is already writing non-portable code. > Ignorance is easily curable. But such a cavalier attitude to > correctness is unprofessional. It's the kind of thing that gives our > profession a bad reputation - it's people writing hacks like that which > gives C code a reputation for being dangerous and buggy. It doesn't need any help with that. Some things you can do are jaw-droppingly unsafe, but still valid C. Like taking a sequence of deref and index operations in an expression, and mixing them up. It's now completely wrong, but it still compiles. Because any T* object can be indexed, whether it points to an array-like sequence of elements or not. This is not just an ordinary out-of-bounds arrays; there /are/ no bounds because there is no array!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 09:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <475892bc-67b7-44c1-8969-55bf98263c7bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #170829 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 17:21:28 UTC+1, Bart wrote: > On 17/07/2023 15:43, David Brown wrote: > > On 17/07/2023 16:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Anyone directly accessing bit 31 of a float /by any means/, in the hope > that it is the sign bit, is already writing non-portable code. > We're slightly cleverer than that. Were testing the leftmost bit of an integer, when the floating bits are reinterpreted as an integer. That's very likely to be the sign bit, because it means that floating point values can be compared using the same circuitry as integer values. (Except they can't because of NaN, but that's another story).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 21:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u944gu$1b0v2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170829 |
On 17/07/2023 18:21, Bart wrote: > On 17/07/2023 15:43, David Brown wrote: > > On 17/07/2023 16:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> Think of it as off-label usage. C doesn't allow bitwise operations on > >> floats. > >> You're forcing it to do something it doesn't really want you to do, > >> and so > >> of course you have to compromise on something. > > > > You don't have to compromise on correctness! > > > > C doesn't allow bitwaise operations directly on floats - that much is > > true. But it /does/ allow you to get the underlying representation of a > > float object. It provides two ways to do this - using type-punning > > unions, > > That doesn't help when the object you want to alias exists elsewhere. It > means pointless copying to a specially created union object. > It's okay to say you think C /should/ allow access to data through incompatible pointers (see Ben's post for the full story - I will continue to use the short form for convenience), or to say that you feel it would be useful in your coding. What is /wrong/, is Malcolm's attitude of thinking that he'd /like/ such pointer cast accesses to work, so he will just use them (and recommend them) and pretend that makes it all okay. I can agree that occasionally it can be nice to be able to access memory in a different way, and memcpy() is a bit ugly (though usually it has zero run-time cost in such situations). But being a nice idea is not enough - the code needs to be correct. For my own use, if such a use turns up (and I can't remember when that might last have been - it's very rare), there are gcc extensions that handle it safely. For non-gcc (or non-gcc compatible) tools, I'd use memcpy() or a char pointer - correct code beats neat code every time. > > > and using char pointers (typified by using memcpy). It is truly > > mind-boggling that someone would actively prefer to use an undefined and > > dangerous hack > > Undefined and dangerous where, on some of your whacky hardware? Or is it > only undefined and dangerous because your favourite compiler has seized > on that UB label to do who knows what? > It is undefined because the C language standards don't define it - they say specifically that you should not do it. I don't know of any compiler that documents that they allow it as an extension, except specifically the "-fno-strict-aliasing" flag in gcc. As a serious programmer interested in writing correct and reliable code, I would never (never knowingly - I have accidental bugs like everyone else) use such undefined behaviour in code unless I had a clear guarantee that it would work. And yes, several real optimising compilers take advantage of type-based alias analysis in their optimisation. Like most optimisation techniques, it only rarely makes a difference - optimisation is the sum of dozens of small improvements. So that means your bad code might work in 99% of use-cases, and fail in 1% - a much worse situation than a clear and outright failure. The solution, of course, is to avoid writing such bad code. (And enable warnings so that your compiler will tell you when you get it wrong.) > >> No, the main reason is that it's an easy and convenient way to get at > >> the sign bit > >> of a float. Which sometimes you might want to do. > > > > When you see a fellow programmer writing incorrect code - such as trying > > to access an object through an incompatible pointer > > You mean trying to access the same 4 bytes of memory through both a u32* > pointer and an f32* pointer? > Yes. > Forgive me for not seeing the issue doing that on any machine I can buy > today to try it out on. > You are either a complete idiot, or you are trolling. And I know you are a very smart guy. Maybe there's a third option, and you are just pretending to be an idiot. Please read the paragraph in the C standards (6.5p7), or Ben's rather nice post. Or re-read one of the hundreds or thousands of discussions on the topic that you have been involved in over the years in c.l.c. > But how does memcpy manage it, just by converting the pointers to void*? > You can always access the data through char pointers. You know this. > Anyone directly accessing bit 31 of a float /by any means/, in the hope > that it is the sign bit, is already writing non-portable code. This is not about portability. > > > Ignorance is easily curable. But such a cavalier attitude to > > correctness is unprofessional. It's the kind of thing that gives our > > profession a bad reputation - it's people writing hacks like that which > > gives C code a reputation for being dangerous and buggy. > > It doesn't need any help with that. Some things you can do are > jaw-droppingly unsafe, but still valid C. > You mistake "syntactically valid" for "correct". > Like taking a sequence of deref and index operations in an expression, > and mixing them up. It's now completely wrong, but it still compiles. > > Because any T* object can be indexed, whether it points to an array-like > sequence of elements or not. This is not just an ordinary out-of-bounds > arrays; there /are/ no bounds because there is no array! > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JRctM.328812$RIra.288341@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #170822 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 13:54:21 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> The main reason people continue to write code like this is because
>> people like you continue to tell them it's a good idea. Please stop
>> doing so.
>>
>No, the main reason is that it's an easy and convenient way to get at the sign bit
>of a float. Which sometimes you might want to do.
#include <math.h>
if (signbit(floating-value)) {
/* sign is negative */
} else {
/* sign is positive */
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230717113353.356@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #170821 |
On 2023-07-17, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
>> in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
>> is ideal).
>
> Your code is messy too. It's okay for something as rarely needed as
> this to be a bit verbose.
But does it have to be verbose? Maybe we could use macros to shorten it.
We had this bit of code upthread:
inline bool sign_bit(float f)
{
union {
uint32_t u;
float f;
} u;
u.f = f;
return u.u & 0x80000000;
}
The kernel here is that a union is declared with two members, of
different types. It is initialized with one, and accessed with the other.
With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
#include <stdio.h>
#define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
int main(void)
{
float x = 4.2;
unsigned y = union_cast(unsigned, float, x);
printf("%x\n", y);
return 0;
}
Output produced:
40866666
We could have a static assertion in there that to_type and from_type
are of the same size and whatnot.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 21:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u944ni$1b0v2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170835 |
On 17/07/2023 20:46, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2023-07-17, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
>>> in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
>>> is ideal).
>>
>> Your code is messy too. It's okay for something as rarely needed as
>> this to be a bit verbose.
>
> But does it have to be verbose? Maybe we could use macros to shorten it.
Sure, it can be shorted in several ways - Ben gave an example using
compound literals.
>
> We had this bit of code upthread:
>
> inline bool sign_bit(float f)
> {
> union {
> uint32_t u;
> float f;
> } u;
> u.f = f;
> return u.u & 0x80000000;
> }
>
>
> The kernel here is that a union is declared with two members, of
> different types. It is initialized with one, and accessed with the other.
>
> With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
> ((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> float x = 4.2;
> unsigned y = union_cast(unsigned, float, x);
> printf("%x\n", y);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Output produced:
>
> 40866666
>
> We could have a static assertion in there that to_type and from_type
> are of the same size and whatnot.
>
You could certainly do that. I'd rather not - I think it hides too
much, and it would be tempting to use that macro in too many other
situations where it is not really the right choice. (As has been
pointed out, this example was just an example - a better solution in
real code would use the "sign_bit" macro, or simply a comparison to 0.0.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jak <nospam@please.ty> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9bv2c$2r3ek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170835 |
Kaz Kylheku ha scritto:
> On 2023-07-17, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 17/07/2023 12:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the same union everywhere
>>> in local scope, as you did, or do you create one in global scope - neither answer
>>> is ideal).
>>
>> Your code is messy too. It's okay for something as rarely needed as
>> this to be a bit verbose.
>
> But does it have to be verbose? Maybe we could use macros to shorten it.
>
> We had this bit of code upthread:
>
> inline bool sign_bit(float f)
> {
> union {
> uint32_t u;
> float f;
> } u;
> u.f = f;
> return u.u & 0x80000000;
> }
>
>
> The kernel here is that a union is declared with two members, of
> different types. It is initialized with one, and accessed with the other.
>
> With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> #define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
> ((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
>
Around the web I found this macro similar to yours:
#define chk_sign(from_type, value) \
(!!(union { from_type from; \
struct { \
uint64_t rest : ((sizeof(from_type) * CHAR_BIT) -
1); \
uint64_t sign : 1; \
} to; \
}) { .from = (value) }.to.sign)
>
> int main(void)
> {
> float x = 4.2;
> unsigned y = union_cast(unsigned, float, x);
> printf("%x\n", y);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Output produced:
>
> 40866666
>
> We could have a static assertion in there that to_type and from_type
> are of the same size and whatnot.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20230720121839.520@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #170976 |
On 2023-07-20, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku ha scritto:
>> With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> #define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
>> ((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
>>
>
> Around the web I found this macro similar to yours:
>
> #define chk_sign(from_type, value) \
> (!!(union { from_type from; \
> struct { \
> uint64_t rest : ((sizeof(from_type) * CHAR_BIT) -
> 1); \
> uint64_t sign : 1; \
> } to; \
> }) { .from = (value) }.to.sign)
That alone not work on anything but big endian machines.
Look at that file again to see whether it has something like
#if BIG_ENDIAN
#define chk_sign ... // the above definition
#else
#define chk_sign ... // alternative with rearranged union
#endif
A common allocation strategy for bitfields is that they follow
endianness. When a 1-bit field is allocated into a brand new
bitfield packing cell (which could be int-sized or whatever),
it goes into the lowest-offset byte first.
Within a byte, the order goes from MSB to LSB on big endian,
and LSB to msb on little endian:
Thus, here if we put 0x80 into x:
union {
unsigned char x;
unsigned y : 1;
};
then y will be 1 on big endian, 0 on little.
We cannot necessarily deduce all this from the ISO C standard, but
that's the way it is with GCC.
In device drivers it's not uncommon to see this:
struct foo_registers {
// 32 bit status word
#if BIG_ENDIAN
unsigned int on_fire : 1;
unsigned int read_ready : 1;
unsigned int locked_up : 1;
/// ... 29 more
#else
/// ... 29 more
unsigned int locked_up : 1;
unsigned int read_ready : 1;
unsigned int on_fire : 1;
#endif
}
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jak <nospam@please.ty> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 22:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u9c4n5$2s0hp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170978 |
Kaz Kylheku ha scritto:
> On 2023-07-20, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku ha scritto:
>>> With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> #define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
>>> ((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
>>>
>>
>> Around the web I found this macro similar to yours:
>>
>> #define chk_sign(from_type, value) \
>> (!!(union { from_type from; \
>> struct { \
>> uint64_t rest : ((sizeof(from_type) * CHAR_BIT) -
>> 1); \
>> uint64_t sign : 1; \
>> } to; \
>> }) { .from = (value) }.to.sign)
>
> That alone not work on anything but big endian machines.
>
> Look at that file again to see whether it has something like
>
> #if BIG_ENDIAN
> #define chk_sign ... // the above definition
> #else
> #define chk_sign ... // alternative with rearranged union
> #endif
>
> A common allocation strategy for bitfields is that they follow
> endianness. When a 1-bit field is allocated into a brand new
> bitfield packing cell (which could be int-sized or whatever),
> it goes into the lowest-offset byte first.
>
> Within a byte, the order goes from MSB to LSB on big endian,
> and LSB to msb on little endian:
>
> Thus, here if we put 0x80 into x:
>
> union {
> unsigned char x;
> unsigned y : 1;
> };
>
> then y will be 1 on big endian, 0 on little.
>
> We cannot necessarily deduce all this from the ISO C standard, but
> that's the way it is with GCC.
>
> In device drivers it's not uncommon to see this:
>
> struct foo_registers {
> // 32 bit status word
> #if BIG_ENDIAN
> unsigned int on_fire : 1;
> unsigned int read_ready : 1;
> unsigned int locked_up : 1;
> /// ... 29 more
> #else
> /// ... 29 more
> unsigned int locked_up : 1;
> unsigned int read_ready : 1;
> unsigned int on_fire : 1;
> #endif
> }
>
In fact, it is how you are saying but #if BIG_ENDIAN was distant several
lines and I have not seen it. My bad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-20 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <867cquvwhu.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #170978 |
Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> writes:
[slightly reformatted for white space]
> On 2023-07-20, jak <nospam@please.ty> wrote:
>
>> Kaz Kylheku ha scritto:
>>
>>> With C99 syntax, we can do that as one expression:
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> #define union_cast(to_type, from_type, value) \
>>> ((union { to_type to; from_type from; }){ .from = (value) }.to)
>>
>> Around the web I found this macro similar to yours:
>>
>> #define chk_sign(from_type, value) \
>> (!!(union { \
>> from_type from; \
>> struct { \
>> uint64_t rest : ((sizeof(from_type) * CHAR_BIT) - 1); \
>> uint64_t sign : 1; \
>> } to; \
>> }) { .from = (value) }.to.sign)
>
> That alone not work on anything but big endian machines.
Look again. It works fine on my little endian machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 16:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h6q2wow1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #170820 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> >
>> >>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
>> >>>
>> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>> >>> uint32_t u;
>> >>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
>> >>> return u & 0x80000000;
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>> and
>> >>>
>> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>> >>> union {
>> >>> uint32_t u;
>> >>> float f;
>> >>> } u;
>> >>> u.f = f;
>> >>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
>> >>> }
>> >>
>> >> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
>> >> designated initialisers let one write
>> >>
>> >> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
>> >
>> > I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
>> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
>> expression, the use of a union or something else?
>> > Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
>> > having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
>> You can use
>>
>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
>>
>> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
>> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
>> initialiser:
>>
>> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
>> > A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
>> > need to go around the houses so much?
>> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
>> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
>> > Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
>> >
>> > (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
>>
>> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
>>
> It's got two main advantages. You don't need to create a union, which
> is a bit messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the
> same union everywhere in local scope, as you did, or do you create one
> in global scope - neither answer is ideal).
This is not very clear. Do you object to the declaration of an object
with a union type (as in DB's code) or the use of an anonymous object of
union type in my code? Your reference to local and global scope
suggests that you might be objecting to the former. Do you object to
the anonymous object as well?
Anyway, I can only answer your question for my suggestion -- if I had a
number of these functions I'd use anonymous objects of just the right
union type for each function, just as you would, presumably, prefer to
use undefined cast expressions of the just the right type for each
function.
> And the C is likely a very
> close match for the assembler.
That's an odd way of putting it. The C you prefer is undefined, so you
are making some big assumptions about what the assembler is likely to
be! But, even so, why is this matching an advantage? And why do you
think my version does not result in a similar "close match"?
I can't see anything that would make me prefer an undefined construct.
> If you've got to use bitwise operations
> instead of comparing to zero with a relational operator to get the
> sign, then it's quite likely you'll end up going to assembly at some
> point.
What are you thinking about here? If you have a more realistic example,
that might be worth discussing.
The example was, I suspect, picked on a whim. If you want the sign bit
of a float in C you'd use the signbit macro, but surely we can discuss
the defined/undefined situation even though the example is not realistic?
> This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
> would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
> for choosing that option.
Has the article quoting been messed up or are you referring to yourself
in the third person?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bdf7a934-5089-4ad2-9640-1fea717a2828n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #170825 |
On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 16:15:27 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
> >> >>>
> >> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >> >>> uint32_t u;
> >> >>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
> >> >>> return u & 0x80000000;
> >> >>> }
> >> >>>
> >> >>> and
> >> >>>
> >> >>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
> >> >>> union {
> >> >>> uint32_t u;
> >> >>> float f;
> >> >>> } u;
> >> >>> u.f = f;
> >> >>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
> >> >>> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
> >> >> designated initialisers let one write
> >> >>
> >> >> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
> >> >
> >> > I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
> >> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
> >> expression, the use of a union or something else?
> >> > Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
> >> > having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
> >> You can use
> >>
> >> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
> >>
> >> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
> >> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
> >> initialiser:
> >>
> >> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
> >> > A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
> >> > need to go around the houses so much?
> >> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
> >> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
> >> > Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
> >> >
> >> > (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
> >>
> >> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
> >>
> > It's got two main advantages. You don't need to create a union, which
> > is a bit messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the
> > same union everywhere in local scope, as you did, or do you create one
> > in global scope - neither answer is ideal).
> This is not very clear. Do you object to the declaration of an object
> with a union type (as in DB's code) or the use of an anonymous object of
> union type in my code? Your reference to local and global scope
> suggests that you might be objecting to the former. Do you object to
> the anonymous object as well?
>
You created an anonymous union, which of course had local scope. One
drawback to that is that if we have several functions all accessing the bits
of a float, then we'll want the unions to be declared in the same way, so that
they match. But you can't enforce that. People might use different identifiers
to "u" and "f" for the members, for example.
>
> Anyway, I can only answer your question for my suggestion -- if I had a
> number of these functions I'd use anonymous objects of just the right
> union type for each function, just as you would, presumably, prefer to
> use undefined cast expressions of the just the right type for each
> function.
>
The undefined cast expressions are less likely to fail to match, though of
course it's possible because there are several type aliases.
> > And the C is likely a very
> > close match for the assembler.
>
> That's an odd way of putting it. The C you prefer is undefined, so you
> are making some big assumptions about what the assembler is likely to
> be! But, even so, why is this matching an advantage? And why do you
> think my version does not result in a similar "close match"?
>
In assember we will certainly have a way of saying "take the memory at
location f and interpret it as a 32 bit integer". It's less clear how we should
write access to another member of a union in assembler.
>
> I can't see anything that would make me prefer an undefined construct.
>
Writing to one member of a union and reading another is also undefined
behaviour, though that rule is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
>
> > If you've got to use bitwise operations
> > instead of comparing to zero with a relational operator to get the
> > sign, then it's quite likely you'll end up going to assembly at some
> > point.
>
> What are you thinking about here? If you have a more realistic example,
> that might be worth discussing.
>
Here's a real bit of code
double addwave(double a, double b) {
if (std::signbit(a) == std::signbit(b)) {
if (std::signbit(a) == 0)
return a + b - a * b;
else
return a + b + a * b;
}
else
return a + b;
}
This is very likely to be a rate limiting step, because it's got to be called for every
sample of a wave. So it's the sort of thing which might be a candidate
for assembly. If we're going to do that, it can help to write out the C so that each
line of C corresponds to one assembly instruction.
>
> The example was, I suspect, picked on a whim. If you want the sign bit
> of a float in C you'd use the signbit macro, but surely we can discuss
> the defined/undefined situation even though the example is not realistic?
>
One problem with C is that older versions of the standard don't have isnan(),
and some compilers complain about comparing a variable to itself (by the rules
of flating point arithmetic, this returns false if the value is NaN so it's a way to
write isnan()). I can see someone resorting to examining the bits. That might be
a more realisitc example.
> > This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
> > would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
> > for choosing that option.
> Has the article quoting been messed up or are you referring to yourself
> in the third person?
>
I'm quoting DB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-17 21:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u945gn$1b4jj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #170827 |
On 17/07/2023 18:17, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 16:15:27 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Monday, 17 July 2023 at 02:43:50 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Bart <b...@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/07/2023 20:55, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Getting it /right/ is very simple. Two examples are :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>>>> memcpy(&u, &f, 4);
>>>>>>> return u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline bool sign_bit(float f) {
>>>>>>> union {
>>>>>>> uint32_t u;
>>>>>>> float f;
>>>>>>> } u;
>>>>>>> u.f = f;
>>>>>>> return u.u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very a tangent, but I like the fact that compound literals and
>>>>>> designated initialisers let one write
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u & 0x80000000;
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to see the appeal of being able to do this!
>>>> It's not clear to what your "this" refers: the contraction into one
>>>> expression, the use of a union or something else?
>>>>> Also, consider that the function result is a bool, which means probably
>>>>> having to turn 0 or 0x80000000 into 0 or 1.
>>>> You can use
>>>>
>>>> return (union { uint32_t u; float f; }){ .f = f }.u >> 31;
>>>>
>>>> if you prefer. I kept the & 0x80000000 to minimise the changes. By
>>>> putting the float first, I could also have eliminated the designated
>>>> initialiser:
>>>>
>>>> return (union { float _; uint32_t u; }){ f }.u >> 31;
>>>>> A lot of things going on just to access bit 31 of the parameter. Why the
>>>>> need to go around the houses so much?
>>>> Because C has not way to get at bit 31 of a float. Anyway, I don't
>>>> think there are really many houses being gone round here.
>>>>> Sticking to C, however, I would just do:
>>>>>
>>>>> (*(u32*)&f) & 0x80000000 # get 0x00000000 or 0x80000000
>>>>
>>>> Why? It seems odd to prefer an expression with no defined meaning.
>>>>
>>> It's got two main advantages. You don't need to create a union, which
>>> is a bit messy (if you've several similar functions, do you create the
>>> same union everywhere in local scope, as you did, or do you create one
>>> in global scope - neither answer is ideal).
>> This is not very clear. Do you object to the declaration of an object
>> with a union type (as in DB's code) or the use of an anonymous object of
>> union type in my code? Your reference to local and global scope
>> suggests that you might be objecting to the former. Do you object to
>> the anonymous object as well?
>>
> You created an anonymous union, which of course had local scope.
Please stop writing "creating a union" without saying what you actually
mean - the type or an instance.
> One
> drawback to that is that if we have several functions all accessing the bits
> of a float, then we'll want the unions to be declared in the same way, so that
> they match. But you can't enforce that. People might use different identifiers
> to "u" and "f" for the members, for example.
Both the type and the instance are local to the function - it is
completely irrelevant what identifiers they use, or whether the unions
are declared the same way in every use. There is no connection between
local types or variables declared in different functions.
>>
>> Anyway, I can only answer your question for my suggestion -- if I had a
>> number of these functions I'd use anonymous objects of just the right
>> union type for each function, just as you would, presumably, prefer to
>> use undefined cast expressions of the just the right type for each
>> function.
>>
> The undefined cast expressions are less likely to fail to match, though of
> course it's possible because there are several type aliases.
"Less likely to fail" is not a criteria for writing good code. Unions
(or memcpy) are guaranteed to work, hacky casts are merely "might work
as long as you stay lucky". There is no contest.
>>> And the C is likely a very
>>> close match for the assembler.
>>
>> That's an odd way of putting it. The C you prefer is undefined, so you
>> are making some big assumptions about what the assembler is likely to
>> be! But, even so, why is this matching an advantage? And why do you
>> think my version does not result in a similar "close match"?
>>
> In assember we will certainly have a way of saying "take the memory at
> location f and interpret it as a 32 bit integer". It's less clear how we should
> write access to another member of a union in assembler.
No one is writing assembly here, so it is as irrelevant as how the code
would look in Haskell or Forth.
>>
>> I can't see anything that would make me prefer an undefined construct.
>>
> Writing to one member of a union and reading another is also undefined
> behaviour, though that rule is more honoured in the breach than the observance.
>>
No, it is fully /defined/ behaviour. See 6.5.2.3p3, especially the
footnote.
(It is undefined behaviour in C++ - there you would use the memcpy()
version, or std::bit_cast<> in C++20.)
>>> If you've got to use bitwise operations
>>> instead of comparing to zero with a relational operator to get the
>>> sign, then it's quite likely you'll end up going to assembly at some
>>> point.
>>
>> What are you thinking about here? If you have a more realistic example,
>> that might be worth discussing.
>>
> Here's a real bit of code
> double addwave(double a, double b) {
> if (std::signbit(a) == std::signbit(b)) {
> if (std::signbit(a) == 0)
> return a + b - a * b;
> else
> return a + b + a * b;
> }
> else
> return a + b;
> }
>
> This is very likely to be a rate limiting step, because it's got to be called for every
> sample of a wave. So it's the sort of thing which might be a candidate
> for assembly. If we're going to do that, it can help to write out the C so that each
> line of C corresponds to one assembly instruction.
Fast is not a substitute for correct.
And the compiler will do a better job than almost all programmers could
do in assembly - particularly if the C programmer does /not/ play
smart-arse and try to manually "optimise" the code with hacks and tricks.
>>
>> The example was, I suspect, picked on a whim. If you want the sign bit
>> of a float in C you'd use the signbit macro, but surely we can discuss
>> the defined/undefined situation even though the example is not realistic?
>>
> One problem with C is that older versions of the standard don't have isnan(),
> and some compilers complain about comparing a variable to itself (by the rules
> of flating point arithmetic, this returns false if the value is NaN so it's a way to
> write isnan()). I can see someone resorting to examining the bits. That might be
> a more realisitc example.
>
> > > This doesn't mean incidentally that casting a pointer is the way Malcolm
>>> would do it, as some people seem to think. Just that there might be reasons
>>> for choosing that option.
>> Has the article quoting been messed up or are you referring to yourself
>> in the third person?
>>
> I'm quoting DB.
It was not a quotation from me. Maybe you meant you were paraphrasing me?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 49 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 49 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web