Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #381174 > unrolled thread
| Started by | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 415 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-29 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-30 00:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-29 17:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:06 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 19:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 00:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 04:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 11:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 17:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 16:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-31 19:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 11:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 18:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:23 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 13:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:38 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 00:55 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 02:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 09:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:28 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:49 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:53 +0200
Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-02 16:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Stu Feldman (Was: Experimental C Build System) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 15:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 18:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:19 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 22:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 19:58 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 05:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 14:52 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:29 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:31 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 16:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 01:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-04 14:07 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:01 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 04:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 21:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:44 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:27 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2024-02-05 17:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 09:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:29 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-03 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:23 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 18:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 20:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-04 16:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:08 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 14:01 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:36 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 15:32 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-02-05 17:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 21:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 22:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 00:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 16:10 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-06 23:41 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 09:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 11:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-07 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:46 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 14:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:11 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:53 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 14:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-07 17:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System [Ben] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:50 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 09:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 11:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 12:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 16:35 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-08 16:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:24 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-08 16:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2024-02-08 17:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 17:10 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-08 17:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-08 21:30 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 00:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 01:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 01:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 01:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 01:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 10:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-02-09 13:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 02:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 15:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 17:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 18:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 10:34 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:41 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 21:56 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 23:12 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:28 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 16:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 02:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-10 02:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:17 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-10 21:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 20:09 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-10 19:51 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-09 18:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-09 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-09 22:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-09 09:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 17:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 23:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 19:24 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 10:12 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 08:40 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-07 12:24 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 01:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-05 06:48 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:20 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:33 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:41 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 01:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-06 00:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-02-05 06:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 22:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 23:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 14:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 19:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 20:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-06 20:49 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-06 13:07 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-02-07 15:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 20:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 21:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 23:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:58 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-08 01:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 01:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 01:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-08 02:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 22:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 23:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-06 21:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:23 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 00:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-07 02:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 04:21 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-07 07:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-07 12:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-07 23:53 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-07 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-08 12:56 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-08 17:22 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-06 00:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-09 11:44 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-09 21:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 22:34 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 22:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:28 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 01:03 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 17:42 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 02:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 19:03 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 16:09 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 02:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 00:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-02-03 17:56 -0500
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 07:52 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-04 06:18 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 03:22 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2024-02-03 00:25 +1100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 13:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 10:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 15:45 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:39 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-03 16:26 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 17:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 13:59 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 13:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-06 14:32 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-06 14:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-06 17:02 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-06 20:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 14:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-02 16:43 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 15:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-02 20:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 20:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 16:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 17:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 17:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 10:36 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 19:52 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-02 20:21 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 21:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 13:15 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-03 01:31 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 12:16 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 17:59 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 19:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-02-03 21:57 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 18:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 20:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-04 20:55 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-07 02:57 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-07 03:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 15:27 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 15:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-07 16:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-08 00:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 21:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 09:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-07 10:40 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-07 15:37 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-04 22:51 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 23:11 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-05 13:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:59 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-05 15:45 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 11:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-05 22:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-04 22:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:53 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 14:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 10:48 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 17:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> - 2024-02-05 11:36 -0600
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:04 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 18:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:04 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 22:13 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 06:43 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 00:02 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 08:47 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-03 06:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 11:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 14:02 -0800
[meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:04 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:19 -0800
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:29 +0100
Re: [meta] Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 05:37 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:30 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:05 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-02 21:18 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-04 15:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 00:26 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 00:35 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-02 11:13 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-02 10:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-02 14:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-02 01:46 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 16:20 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:34 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-02-01 16:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 17:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 19:25 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 19:51 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:12 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 12:43 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-02-01 22:36 +0200
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:09 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:32 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 21:17 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:48 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 11:49 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:24 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:38 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-02-01 23:53 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 23:14 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-30 09:17 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-30 12:09 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 15:25 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-30 17:50 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:14 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 20:38 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 13:46 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 14:06 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-05 14:48 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-05 15:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-30 16:46 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 03:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-31 03:23 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 08:47 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 11:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-31 15:31 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-31 15:13 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 03:07 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 15:00 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-02-01 23:40 +0000
system(3) (was: Re: Experimental C Build System) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-02-01 08:15 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-31 23:02 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 15:11 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:55 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-02-01 14:42 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 12:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-01 14:29 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 16:43 +0100
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 01:05 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 11:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-03 07:17 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 15:54 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 16:05 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-03 12:39 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-03 22:19 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:56 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-02-04 20:57 -0800
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-31 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:36 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-08 13:50 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System thiago <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2024-02-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Experimental C Build System bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-02-12 02:18 +0000
Page 8 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 21 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-08 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uq3dku$247ke$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382122 |
On 08/02/2024 18:10, bart wrote: > On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >>> But I'm pretty sure you do >>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have >>> remembered it. >> >> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you >> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't >> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never >> know now. > > You're being unfair. > > Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as > monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And > another dozen that I've had to install myself. > > If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't remember. > Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get on with > it and install the lot. > It's fine to say you can't remember - or that you don't care. It is not fine to say I've installed Linux a couple of times in the past, and gcc is always included in the default install - and repeat the assertion when others (who know better) say differently. > BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C > headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not > install them? > You might get some headers, but not many - most come as part of development tool packages, or "development" versions of libraries, or as a "kernel headers" package. You might accidentally install some of these, or you might install something else that has a dependency on a compiler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87jzneqwqg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382122 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 08/02/2024 16:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >>> But I'm pretty sure you do >>> get gcc by default and if you had to take special action I would have >>> remembered it. >> You remember that gcc was installed by default often enough that you >> were prepared to claim it as a general rule about Linux, but you can't >> remember any of the distributions that did it... Oh well, we'll never >> know now. > > You're being unfair. > > Let's say I've used a dozen versions of prepackaged Linux (eg. as > monolithic image, or already installed), which have always had gcc. And > another dozen that I've had to install myself. > > If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't > remember. Usually there were 1000 packages to install; you just let it get > on with it and install the lot. Would you then claim, knowing that you can't really remember, that (and you cut this part) "If you install Linux you get gcc and other development tools, and I don't think there's even a way of setting up the install to say you don't want them"? I contend you probably shouldn't. And if, in the face of quite a few responses pointing out that this is not usual, would you simply say "sorry, I may be misremembering"? I contend you probably should. > BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C > headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install > them? I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux distributions. This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to my limited experience. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 01:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq3uag$290lm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382149 |
On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >> them? > > I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux > distributions. > > This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's > confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to > my limited experience. Not to mine. I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. Now that advantage may be just by chance?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 01:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <34fxN.319995$PuZ9.133104@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #382151 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >>> them? >> >> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux >> distributions. >> >> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's >> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to >> my limited experience. > >Not to mine. I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was >that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. > >Now that advantage may be just by chance? > Now, you are just being disingenuous. It's on the installation media and the user installing it selects whether to include it or not. Yes, linux distributions come with compilers, headers and libraries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 01:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240208172155.799@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382151 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >>> them? >> >> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux >> distributions. >> >> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's >> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to >> my limited experience. > > Not to mine. I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was > that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. Desktop GNU/Linux distributions come with thousands of packages. You don't get all of them by default. That's what the thread is about. Depending on the distro, getting the compilers that could be as little as answering one question: like for instance that your installation type is that of a development workstation. People just looking to surf the web and use e-mail don't require compilers. -- 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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 01:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87eddmqv90.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382151 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >>> them? >> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux >> distributions. >> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's >> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to >> my limited experience. > > Not to mine. I thought you said you can't remember either? Frankly, I don't think you can recall enough of your experience to be able to say this honestly. But if you can recall, then tell me -- what distributions install gcc and the other development tools by default? Malcolm can't help, but maybe you can. (As has been pointed out, some distributions are built from source by the user doing the install. These are not the kind we are discussing.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 10:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq4uvo$2j3od$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382156 |
On 09/02/2024 01:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >>>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >>>> them? >>> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux >>> distributions. >>> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's >>> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to >>> my limited experience. >> >> Not to mine. > > I thought you said you can't remember either? Frankly, I don't think > you can recall enough of your experience to be able to say this > honestly. "In MY limited experience" - the bits I can remember - whenever I needed to compile any C code on Linux, then gcc was always there. > But if you can recall, then tell me -- what distributions > install gcc and the other development tools by default? Malcolm can't > help, but maybe you can. All the various Linuxes I used on RPi1 and RPi4, 32-bit and the odd 64-bit, had gcc. I know because that was the primary reason for using those boards. Those OSes were downloaded in one lump, or sometimes came as plug-in SD cards. The same for all the various Linuxes I used on my PC via VirtualBox. The same with the pre-installed OS on a Linux notebook I once tried. Further back, I can't remember if the Linuxes I used to install on my PC via CDs, which were done a package at a time, definitely had gcc since I can't remember if I ever tried to compile C code on them. (I had enough trouble just doing the basics, like a working screen and keyword.) But don't ask me exactly which distributions they are; to me Linux is Linux and they are all a blur. So, /this/ is my limited experience. Why are you trying to accuse me of pulling a fast one?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87r0hlpylh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #382176 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 09/02/2024 01:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 09/02/2024 00:58, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>>> BTW if gcc /isn't/ installed, do you still get a bunch of standard C >>>>> headers in /usr/include? If so, what do you have to select to not install >>>>> them? >>>> I can't say what happens without specifics. There are hundreds of Linux >>>> distributions. >>>> This is exactly why I was curious about what prompted Malcolm's >>>> confident statement about what comes with "Linux" -- it runs contrary to >>>> my limited experience. >>> >>> Not to mine. >> I thought you said you can't remember either? Frankly, I don't think >> you can recall enough of your experience to be able to say this >> honestly. > > "In MY limited experience" - the bits I can remember - whenever I needed to > compile any C code on Linux, then gcc was always there. That's not the point. The question is whether it got there by default. That's not what most people are saying. >> But if you can recall, then tell me -- what distributions >> install gcc and the other development tools by default? Malcolm can't >> help, but maybe you can. > > All the various Linuxes I used on RPi1 and RPi4, 32-bit and the odd 64-bit, > had gcc. I know because that was the primary reason for using those > boards. That's probably not what Malcolm was using, but they may well install gcc by default. > Those OSes were downloaded in one lump, or sometimes came as plug-in SD > cards. > > The same for all the various Linuxes I used on my PC via VirtualBox. Which ones installed gcc by default? > The same with the pre-installed OS on a Linux notebook I once tried. How can that be relevant to what is installed by default? Someone else chose what to install. > Further back, I can't remember if the Linuxes I used to install on my PC > via CDs, which were done a package at a time, definitely had gcc since I > can't remember if I ever tried to compile C code on them. (I had enough > trouble just doing the basics, like a working screen and keyword.) > > But don't ask me exactly which distributions they are; to me Linux is Linux > and they are all a blur. Yes, that's why I wondered how you could be so sure that I was being unfair to Malcolm. > So, /this/ is my limited experience. Why are you trying to accuse me of > pulling a fast one? No. I was taking you at your word -- that you did not remember: "If those asked whether I wanted gcc added, then I really can't remember." -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 02:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq41cs$2a4jh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382151 |
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 01:14:57 +0000, bart wrote: > I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was > that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. > > Now that advantage may be just by chance? Even when you add these for Windows, you do seem to have trouble building C programs though, don’t you, as evidenced by your past complaints? So clearly there must be a bit more to it than that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 15:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq5hip$2mgb3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382158 |
On 09/02/2024 02:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 01:14:57 +0000, bart wrote: > >> I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was >> that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. >> >> Now that advantage may be just by chance? > > Even when you add these for Windows, you do seem to have trouble building > C programs though, don’t you, as evidenced by your past complaints? So > clearly there must be a bit more to it than that. Linux (by which I mean all such Unix-related OSes) is a C machine. Not only is it all implemented in C, but it won't let you forget that, with little demarcation between the OS, C libraries, C headers, C compilers, and a myriad assorted routines that are all amazingly chummy. Some people here seem to think that POSIX is an essential part of C, yet windows.c is not considered part of C on Windows. So, having a C compiler on Windows is not enough, if an application has an over-reliance on that ecosystem as part of its build process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240209084620.832@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382198 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 02:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 01:14:57 +0000, bart wrote: >> >>> I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was >>> that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. >>> >>> Now that advantage may be just by chance? >> >> Even when you add these for Windows, you do seem to have trouble building >> C programs though, don’t you, as evidenced by your past complaints? So >> clearly there must be a bit more to it than that. > > Linux (by which I mean all such Unix-related OSes) is a C machine. > > Not only is it all implemented in C, but it won't let you forget that, > with little demarcation between the OS, C libraries, C headers, C > compilers, and a myriad assorted routines that are all amazingly chummy. Windows is built on C. API's expressed in C with function prototypes and data structures. I have worked in several Windows shops as a C++ developer. The culture was just as steeped in C and C++ as development on Unix. The feeling was almost as if Microsoft had invented C and Unix didn't exist. Modern Windows now even has the equivalent of a C library: the UCRT (universal C run time), a public library, okay to use by applications, which has your malloc, printf and all that. > Some people here seem to think that POSIX is an essential part of C, yet > windows.c is not considered part of C on Windows. Anyone who claims that POSIX is part of C in comp.lang.c will be corrected, and if they persist, ultimately ridiculed and ostracized. :) POSIX has a relationship to ISO C in that it includes the standard by reference. Everything in C is in POSIX. POSIX redundantly documents numerous C library functions. Or not always redundantly; here and there it has additional requirements. POSIX also extends the standard C headers with its own functions. Some features of POSIX are accessible via <stdio.h> or <stdlib.h>. C is an essential part of POSIX, but the reverse isn't true. -- 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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq5qkj$2oaag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382209 |
On 09/02/2024 17:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 09/02/2024 02:07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 01:14:57 +0000, bart wrote: >>> >>>> I thought the big deal with Linux compared with Windows was >>>> that it came with compilers, headers and libraries at least for C. >>>> >>>> Now that advantage may be just by chance? >>> >>> Even when you add these for Windows, you do seem to have trouble building >>> C programs though, don’t you, as evidenced by your past complaints? So >>> clearly there must be a bit more to it than that. >> >> Linux (by which I mean all such Unix-related OSes) is a C machine. >> >> Not only is it all implemented in C, but it won't let you forget that, >> with little demarcation between the OS, C libraries, C headers, C >> compilers, and a myriad assorted routines that are all amazingly chummy. > > Windows is built on C. API's expressed in C with function prototypes > and data structures. But the demarcation is better. The C-ness doesn't leak through, except via the OS APIs. There are no C standard headers provided (nor in a centralised location; if a C compiler is installed, they are local to the compiler). It doesn't enforce C's case-sensitivity in the file system and shell programs. At a program's entry point, you won't find 'argn', 'argv' conveniently pushed onto the stack. Even if you look at the API, it uses a set of precisely defined Windows data types which wrap the raw C types. (BTW that API is now marked as being C++.) And of course you don't routinely have C compilers, assemblers and linkers provided. With Linux, everything screams 'C'. > I have worked in several Windows shops as a C++ developer. The culture > was just as steeped in C and C++ as development on Unix. It would be if they used C++. > The feeling > was almost as if Microsoft had invented C and Unix didn't exist. There's Windows. There's Linux. And then there are MS development tools. People tend to mix up those tools with Windows. Note that MS also have languages such as VB, F# and C#, all working on top of CLI/CIL (whichever it is, perhaps both), and something called .NET. I'm not sure they even acknowledge the existence of C anymore. > Modern Windows now even has the equivalent of a C library: the UCRT > (universal C run time), a public library, okay to use by applications, > which has your malloc, printf and all that. It's called now MSVCRT.DLL. I've used that since the 90s, simply because it was simpler than WinAPI. I was only vaguely aware then that it was also to do with C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <877cjdebb8.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #382216 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 09/02/2024 17:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
[...]
>> Modern Windows now even has the equivalent of a C library: the UCRT
>> (universal C run time), a public library, okay to use by applications,
>> which has your malloc, printf and all that.
>
> It's called now MSVCRT.DLL. I've used that since the 90s, simply
> because it was simpler than WinAPI. I was only vaguely aware then that
> it was also to do with C.
No, MCVCRT.DLL and the UCRT are not the same. UCRT is newer.
https://stackoverflow.com/q/67848972/827263
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240209103252.434@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382216 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 17:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> The feeling >> was almost as if Microsoft had invented C and Unix didn't exist. > > There's Windows. There's Linux. And then there are MS development tools. > > People tend to mix up those tools with Windows. Yes, just like people tend to post to newsgroups saying that everything screams "C" in Linux. > Note that MS also have > languages such as VB, F# and C#, all working on top of CLI/CIL > (whichever it is, perhaps both), and something called .NET. I'm not sure > they even acknowledge the existence of C anymore. >> Modern Windows now even has the equivalent of a C library: the UCRT >> (universal C run time), a public library, okay to use by applications, >> which has your malloc, printf and all that. > > It's called now MSVCRT.DLL. Umm, no. > I've used that since the 90s, simply because > it was simpler than WinAPI. I was only vaguely aware then that it was > also to do with C. You didn't use /that/ since the 90s. UCRT is a new thing that ships with Windows 10, and is available as an add on for as back as Windows 7, an that's it. MSVCRT.DLL is not documented for public use; when you link to it, you're sticking a fork into the proverbial toaster. UCRT is different. -- 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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq62l7$2pnbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382220 |
On 09/02/2024 18:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 09/02/2024 17:13, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> The feeling >>> was almost as if Microsoft had invented C and Unix didn't exist. >> >> There's Windows. There's Linux. And then there are MS development tools. >> >> People tend to mix up those tools with Windows. > > Yes, just like people tend to post to newsgroups saying that > everything screams "C" in Linux. > >> Note that MS also have >> languages such as VB, F# and C#, all working on top of CLI/CIL >> (whichever it is, perhaps both), and something called .NET. I'm not sure >> they even acknowledge the existence of C anymore. > >>> Modern Windows now even has the equivalent of a C library: the UCRT >>> (universal C run time), a public library, okay to use by applications, >>> which has your malloc, printf and all that. >> >> It's called now MSVCRT.DLL. > > Umm, no. > >> I've used that since the 90s, simply because >> it was simpler than WinAPI. I was only vaguely aware then that it was >> also to do with C. > > You didn't use /that/ since the 90s. UCRT is a new thing that ships with > Windows 10, and is available as an add on for as back as Windows 7, an > that's it. > > MSVCRT.DLL is not documented for public use; when you link to it, > you're sticking a fork into the proverbial toaster. UCRT is different. > What exactly to you mean by UCRT; ucrtbase.dll? That's missing a few useful things, like '_getmainargs' (used to get argn, argv for main()), and obscure functions like 'printf'. Meanwhile, if I look at programs such as gcc.exe, as.exe, ld.exe, not only do THEY import msvcrt.dll, but the EXEs produced by gcc.exe do so too. So they didn't get the memo.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240209133810.84@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382226 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> MSVCRT.DLL is not documented for public use; when you link to it, >> you're sticking a fork into the proverbial toaster. UCRT is different. >> > > What exactly to you mean by UCRT; ucrtbase.dll? > > That's missing a few useful things, like '_getmainargs' (used to get > argn, argv for main()), and obscure functions like 'printf'. I believe printf is in there. _getmainargs isn't; that's in a VC run time library. > Meanwhile, if I look at programs such as gcc.exe, as.exe, ld.exe, not > only do THEY import msvcrt.dll, but the EXEs produced by gcc.exe do so too. Umm, no; you must be talking specifically about the MinGW ones. > So they didn't get the memo. They got the memo. The issue is that even though MSVCRT.DLL is undocumented, it constitutes a "system library". This is important. The GNU Public license prohibits programs from being linked to proprietary code --- but it has an exception for system libraries (libraries that are part of the target platform where the program runs). Using MSVCRT.DLL is like sticking a fork in the toaster, but all those programs being linked to MSVCRT.DLL means the GPL isn't violated. Compilers under Cygwin don't link to MSVCRT.DLL --- including the ones in the Cygwin MingW package. (Yes, Cygwin has a package of MinGW compilers. If you have Cygwin, you just install that, and then you can build MinGW programs. The built programs probably still link to MSVCRT.DLL as far as I know. Cygwin itself uses this MinGW compiler package for compiling some of its components, like the setup.exe program and I think the cygwin1.dll also.) -- 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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 22:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq69q8$2qti2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382235 |
On 09/02/2024 21:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> MSVCRT.DLL is not documented for public use; when you link to it, >>> you're sticking a fork into the proverbial toaster. UCRT is different. >>> >> >> What exactly to you mean by UCRT; ucrtbase.dll? >> >> That's missing a few useful things, like '_getmainargs' (used to get >> argn, argv for main()), and obscure functions like 'printf'. > > I believe printf is in there. Not under my ucrtbase.dll if that's the right file. If it was there, it would go somewhere in here: 2332 00031F90 204688 Fun pow 2333 00033630 210480 Fun powf 2334 00058740 362304 Fun putc 2335 00080BE0 527328 Fun putchar 2336 00059660 366176 Fun puts I suspect this is used by MS programs which may have their own wrappers around 'printf'. > _getmainargs isn't; that's in a VC run time library. > >> Meanwhile, if I look at programs such as gcc.exe, as.exe, ld.exe, not >> only do THEY import msvcrt.dll, but the EXEs produced by gcc.exe do so too. > > Umm, no; you must be talking specifically about the MinGW ones. I'm talking about lots of binaries, for example: raylib.dll opengl.dll sdl2.dll sqlite3_32.dll s7.exe tcc.exe nim.exe nasm.exe >> So they didn't get the memo. > > They got the memo. The issue is that even though MSVCRT.DLL is > undocumented, it constitutes a "system library". This is important. If they got rid of it, half the programs that run under Windows would stop working. > The GNU Public license prohibits programs from being linked to > proprietary code --- but it has an exception for system libraries > (libraries that are part of the target platform where the program runs). > > Using MSVCRT.DLL is like sticking a fork in the toaster, but all those > programs being linked to MSVCRT.DLL means the GPL isn't violated. > > Compilers under Cygwin don't link to MSVCRT.DLL --- including the ones > in the Cygwin MingW package. (Yes, Cygwin has a package of MinGW > compilers. If you have Cygwin, you just install that, and then you can > build MinGW programs. The built programs probably still link to > MSVCRT.DLL as far as I know. Cygwin itself uses this MinGW compiler > package for compiling some of its components, like the setup.exe program > and I think the cygwin1.dll also.) > I'm no idea what the point of CYGWIN is. Never have done either. What does it bring to the table? Presumably to make some programs that originate on Linux feel more at home, instead of making the effort to make them more portable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240209145219.966@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382241 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 21:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> MSVCRT.DLL is not documented for public use; when you link to it, >>>> you're sticking a fork into the proverbial toaster. UCRT is different. >>>> >>> >>> What exactly to you mean by UCRT; ucrtbase.dll? >>> >>> That's missing a few useful things, like '_getmainargs' (used to get >>> argn, argv for main()), and obscure functions like 'printf'. >> >> I believe printf is in there. > > Not under my ucrtbase.dll if that's the right file. If it was there, it > would go somewhere in here: > > 2332 00031F90 204688 Fun pow > 2333 00033630 210480 Fun powf > 2334 00058740 362304 Fun putc > 2335 00080BE0 527328 Fun putchar > 2336 00059660 366176 Fun puts Hmm. Lots of hits for identifiers containing printf: $ strings ucrtbase.dll | grep printf __conio_common_vcprintf __conio_common_vcprintf_p __conio_common_vcprintf_s __conio_common_vcwprintf [ SNIP ] __stdio_common_vfprintf __stdio_common_vfprintf_p [ SNIP ] __stdio_common_vfprintf_s __stdio_common_vfwprintf __stdio_common_vfwprintf_p [ SNIP ] _get_printf_count_output [ SNIP ] _o___conio_common_vcprintf [ SNIP] _o___stdio_common_vfwprintf_p [ SNIP] _set_printf_count_output > I suspect this is used by MS programs which may have their own wrappers > around 'printf'. This seems to be documented: "In Visual Studio 2015 The printf and scanf family of functions were declared as inline and moved to the <stdio.h> and <conio.h> headers." https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/format-specification-syntax-printf-and-wprintf-functions?view=msvc-170 I'm guessing that these inline functions call one of those symbols found above, like maybe __stdio_common_vfprintf? >> only do THEY import msvcrt.dll, but the EXEs produced by gcc.exe do so too. >> >> Umm, no; you must be talking specifically about the MinGW ones. > > I'm talking about lots of binaries, for example: > > raylib.dll > opengl.dll > sdl2.dll > sqlite3_32.dll > s7.exe > tcc.exe > nim.exe > nasm.exe > >>> So they didn't get the memo. >> >> They got the memo. The issue is that even though MSVCRT.DLL is >> undocumented, it constitutes a "system library". This is important. > > If they got rid of it, half the programs that run under Windows would > stop working. I suspect, mainly just these fledgling ports of unix cruft to Windows. Most of the Windows world wouldn't notice. > I'm no idea what the point of CYGWIN is. Never have done either. What > does it bring to the table? Presumably to make some programs that > originate on Linux feel more at home, instead of making the effort to > make them more portable. The effort is significant. Many things have to be coded twice. -- 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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-09 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uq6dhq$2ril5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #382244 |
On 09/02/2024 23:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I'm no idea what the point of CYGWIN is. Never have done either. What
>> does it bring to the table? Presumably to make some programs that
>> originate on Linux feel more at home, instead of making the effort to
>> make them more portable.
>
> The effort is significant. Many things have to be coded twice.
>
Well, you need to support both OSes.
My stuff uses one module in the language library which is OS-specific.
At one point I had three versions for three OS targets. It is
effectively a mini cross-platform wrapper around some OS functions.
So for example, to get the address of a function in a shared library
given an instance handle to the library, the Windows version is:
export func os_getdllprocaddr(int hinst, ichar name)ref void=
GetProcAddress(cast(hinst), name)
end
The Linux version is this:
export func os_getdllprocaddr(int hlib, ichar name)ref void=
dlsym(cast(int(hlib)), name)
end
(The third one was OS-neutral. Neither GetProcAddress or dlsym were
available, but to be able to run some programs, 20 or so addresses of
common functions in the C library were hardcoded in a table.)
It is then just a question of including the right OS-specific module.
If rendered to C source code, there would be one .c version for Linux,
and one for Windows, since I dislike using conditional blocks.
Or sometimes (using that third version) a single .c file worked for
both, but with limited functionality. It was for demos.
As I understand your view, you want the Linux program to just call
dlsym(), and need all these subsystems on Windows to make it appear as
though that was natively available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-10 00:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240209161634.475@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #382246 |
On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2024 23:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-02-09, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>> I'm no idea what the point of CYGWIN is. Never have done either. What >>> does it bring to the table? Presumably to make some programs that >>> originate on Linux feel more at home, instead of making the effort to >>> make them more portable. >> >> The effort is significant. Many things have to be coded twice. >> > > Well, you need to support both OSes. > > My stuff uses one module in the language library which is OS-specific. > > At one point I had three versions for three OS targets. It is > effectively a mini cross-platform wrapper around some OS functions. > > So for example, to get the address of a function in a shared library > given an instance handle to the library, the Windows version is: > > export func os_getdllprocaddr(int hinst, ichar name)ref void= > GetProcAddress(cast(hinst), name) > end > > The Linux version is this: > > export func os_getdllprocaddr(int hlib, ichar name)ref void= > dlsym(cast(int(hlib)), name) > end With cygwin, the Linux and Windows version is: dlsym(handle, name); And that's just a small thing. How would you write serial control? Say the task is to open a serial port, set the baud rate to 115200 kbps, 8N1 parity, 8-bit-clean raw mode, and send a few bytes? There is a POSIX way to do this, and so I have to write the code just once, if I have a POSIX library on all the target machines. Or, say, recursively walk a directory tree. I write the POSIX way to do it, just once. Create a hardlink: link(this, that). Will create an NTFS hard link on Windows. > As I understand your view, you want the Linux program to just call > dlsym(), and need all these subsystems on Windows to make it appear as > though that was natively available. Well, yes; just like a Visual C program can call printf, as if printf were natively available in Windows. Or call ShellExecuteEx() so that it magically looks like Windows can natively "launch" a .PDF or .HTML file in the same way it can run an .EXE. That's how abstraction works! -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web