Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391319 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-18 21:38 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-03-23 12:29 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 422 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 21:38 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 19:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 19:22 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 22:43 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 20:11 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-18 20:07 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-18 23:34 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 04:01 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 00:38 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-18 22:27 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-19 13:40 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 11:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 15:06 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 12:52 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 11:55 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 17:38 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 20:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 19:03 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:09 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 12:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-20 13:36 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 14:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-20 14:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 15:11 +0000
Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 16:37 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 16:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 17:20 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-24 21:56 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 08:45 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 09:08 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:55 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:18 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 08:39 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 03:51 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:11 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 05:02 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 16:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 20:04 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:23 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:31 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:34 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 02:59 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:59 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 12:38 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 22:53 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:15 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 10:11 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-29 18:25 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-30 01:39 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-03-31 17:15 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-31 19:48 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-31 21:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-31 14:56 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:07 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 17:58 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:20 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 12:42 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 17:36 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-27 13:48 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-27 18:31 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-29 10:14 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-29 21:02 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 12:31 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 20:06 +0000
Newsgroup etiquette Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-28 11:03 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-28 18:39 +0000
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 18:45 +0000
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-27 12:28 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-27 14:40 -0700
Re: Newsgroup etiquette Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-04-28 00:59 -0300
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:58 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 19:09 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 17:34 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 19:49 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:39 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-07 00:04 -0800
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 13:23 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 09:50 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:22 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-25 18:18 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:55 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:41 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 23:35 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 16:38 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 19:55 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:00 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 16:01 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 14:45 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 17:16 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-26 08:55 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:22 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:19 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:40 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 17:25 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:27 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 20:34 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 13:50 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 21:04 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:12 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-26 21:18 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 23:22 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:38 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:52 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:32 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 22:29 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-26 14:31 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:33 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 15:42 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 19:52 -0400
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 17:16 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-25 04:55 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:48 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 21:52 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 22:36 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-25 23:14 +0000
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:09 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-03 20:03 -0700
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-04 14:04 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-04 15:43 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-04 18:39 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-04 19:02 +0100
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-05 11:29 +0200
Re: Integral types and own type definitions (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-15 23:02 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 14:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:59 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 17:29 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 11:01 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-23 12:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:47 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:28 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 15:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 15:57 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 20:46 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 19:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 19:58 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 22:57 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 21:10 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 16:10 -0700
The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 16:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 15:57 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 10:38 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:31 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-25 19:23 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:14 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 23:50 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 10:33 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 19:18 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 18:50 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 20:45 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 23:30 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:29 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:08 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:50 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 19:09 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 21:39 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 23:21 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-26 23:51 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 00:32 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 13:51 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-27 01:10 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 01:33 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 10:54 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:09 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-28 17:49 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:07 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-27 03:24 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-27 11:14 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:14 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 02:05 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 10:13 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 11:22 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 14:32 +0300
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:42 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 11:37 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:53 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 13:00 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 14:06 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:05 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 12:19 +0000
[OT] PC hardware prices [correction] (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-31 21:35 +0200
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-27 15:04 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 02:59 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 19:03 -0700
[OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 03:26 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 23:14 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 13:26 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 15:20 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 15:33 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:26 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:27 -0700
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:46 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 13:20 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 15:56 +0300
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 14:20 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 15:43 +0100
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-28 17:54 +0000
Re: [OT] SPARC (was Re: The integral type 'byte') "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 10:16 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-28 11:03 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-28 14:01 +0300
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 11:29 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 12:46 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-28 12:30 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:10 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-26 11:02 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:47 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 13:12 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 14:48 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:40 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:29 +0000
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 15:22 +0100
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-26 13:09 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-25 13:16 -0700
Re: The integral type 'byte' (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 11:33 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:22 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:10 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 20:59 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 16:18 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-20 23:55 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 00:46 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 18:47 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-21 11:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 12:04 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 00:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 20:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 13:06 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:51 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 10:50 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-23 11:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 14:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 12:51 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 14:07 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 15:32 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 15:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 17:22 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 16:02 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:17 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 16:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-24 16:56 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 18:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 08:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 14:46 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 15:04 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 15:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 16:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-26 09:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-26 10:07 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-27 00:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-27 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-27 10:54 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-28 16:13 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 16:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-28 20:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 22:18 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 15:33 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-28 22:48 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 16:53 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 00:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-28 18:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:24 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-29 13:37 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 16:33 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-29 18:11 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-28 10:57 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-25 16:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:29 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 14:58 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 17:14 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 16:37 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 19:00 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-24 17:15 +0000
Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 18:44 +0100
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 23:06 +0200
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 23:44 +0100
Re: Code-change-to-run times (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-25 13:00 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 21:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 08:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:04 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-25 14:43 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-25 13:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 17:10 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 19:07 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 15:44 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 11:27 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-24 20:13 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-24 23:01 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 11:17 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-24 15:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 11:27 -0700
Compiler speed (ad nauseam) (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-24 18:01 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-25 00:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-03-24 19:00 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-24 21:50 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-25 08:19 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-22 14:41 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 11:41 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 14:13 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 23:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 07:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 02:37 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 13:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 15:47 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 15:31 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-21 17:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 02:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-22 04:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-21 21:24 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 14:07 +0000
Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 02:04 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-03-25 22:35 -0400
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 12:40 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:47 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-26 17:55 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-26 19:36 +0200
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 13:44 +0000
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-26 02:37 +0000
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-26 14:42 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-26 19:01 +0100
Re: Fast division (was Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-26 18:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 00:01 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-03-22 01:41 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 14:32 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-22 16:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:35 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 14:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:20 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:33 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:07 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 22:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:19 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 20:26 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 00:42 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 04:51 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 01:02 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 05:23 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 06:06 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-20 13:27 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-20 16:50 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 11:24 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 16:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 16:46 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-23 08:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-23 12:06 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-23 12:35 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-24 13:09 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-03-22 19:07 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 13:25 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:17 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-22 17:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-22 10:29 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood <phaywood@alphalink.com.au> - 2025-03-25 21:41 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-22 14:30 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-22 11:31 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 14:54 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-03-19 07:16 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 01:53 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 16:45 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 21:21 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 14:56 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 22:34 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-19 19:46 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 11:25 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-19 10:15 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 12:40 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-19 17:42 +0100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 09:03 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-19 14:40 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 17:39 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 15:05 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-22 10:19 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-03-23 11:05 +1100
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-03-23 16:22 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 09:50 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 04:59 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:14 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-20 16:29 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-03-21 09:09 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-21 17:12 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-19 12:36 +0200
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-19 09:13 -0400
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-20 05:15 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-20 12:14 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-21 00:05 -0700
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-21 07:48 +0000
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-22 13:32 -0500
Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-03-23 12:29 -0400
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrugmo$3ij4s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391608 |
On 25/03/2025 14:46, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:09:21 +0000 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >> On 25/03/2025 08:40, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> >> >>>> For that matter, why do YOU use a makefile when your full build is only >>>> 0.8 seconds? >>> >>> Modularising code is far more than just about compilation speed which you'd >>> know if you had anything approaching a clue. >> >> You can modularise code without also needing a makefile! > > IYYM you can build modularised code without it. Sure , sometimes, so long as > the modules don't have varying compilation dependencies. But then you end up > rebuilding everything. And? I thought you said it didn't matter how long it took! Perhaps compilation time does matter after all... > Listen sonny, in large projects in companies - ie not the toy code you work > on in your bedroom - different people will have checked out seperate modules > and be working on them at any one time. Thats a lot simpler than having one > huge source file that then has a boatload of merge issues when a dozen people > all try to check their changes back in. Fucking hell, you still don't get it. That single source file is MACHINE-GENERATED. Nobody's going to be even looking inside let alone trying to maintain it. You might as well complain that a single EXE file is difficult to maintain!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrugut$3j3ah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391610 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:04:56 +0000 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >On 25/03/2025 14:46, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:09:21 +0000 >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >>> On 25/03/2025 08:40, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> For that matter, why do YOU use a makefile when your full build is only >>>>> 0.8 seconds? >>>> >>>> Modularising code is far more than just about compilation speed which you'd > >>>> know if you had anything approaching a clue. >>> >>> You can modularise code without also needing a makefile! >> >> IYYM you can build modularised code without it. Sure , sometimes, so long as >> the modules don't have varying compilation dependencies. But then you end up >> rebuilding everything. > >And? I thought you said it didn't matter how long it took! Perhaps >compilation time does matter after all... It doesn't matter all that much unless its something huge like the linux kernel. But CPU usage on a busy machine does matter and modularisation for other reasons I've given is a good thing. >> Listen sonny, in large projects in companies - ie not the toy code you work >> on in your bedroom - different people will have checked out seperate modules >> and be working on them at any one time. Thats a lot simpler than having one >> huge source file that then has a boatload of merge issues when a dozen people > >> all try to check their changes back in. > >Fucking hell, you still don't get it. That single source file is >MACHINE-GENERATED. Nobody's going to be even looking inside let alone >trying to maintain it. You're the one extolling the virtues of a single source file, not me. Here's an idea - instead of outputting C why don't you make it output machine code instead. Might be more useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-25 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vruma5$3mvbj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391611 |
On 25/03/2025 15:09, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > You're the one extolling the virtues of a single source file, not me. > > Here's an idea - instead of outputting C why don't you make it output > machine code instead. Might be more useful. What makes you think I don't? The C code is mainly for people who can't or won't run Windows binaries. It also makes it incredibly easy to build from source (gcc prog.c). In my case I want to apply gcc-level optimisations that my compiler doesn't do. So it has to be C code if I want that final 25% extra speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-26 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs0gsh$1en04$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391618 |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:40:38 +0000 bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >On 25/03/2025 15:09, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > >> You're the one extolling the virtues of a single source file, not me. >> >> Here's an idea - instead of outputting C why don't you make it output >> machine code instead. Might be more useful. > > >What makes you think I don't? The C code is mainly for people who can't >or won't run Windows binaries. It also makes it incredibly easy to build >from source (gcc prog.c). > >In my case I want to apply gcc-level optimisations that my compiler >doesn't do. So it has to be C code if I want that final 25% extra speed. Whats this? You mean your amazing zippy fast compiler can't optimise for shit? Maybe gcc isn't so bad after all eh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-26 10:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs0jka$1gdpo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391658 |
On 26/03/2025 09:20, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:40:38 +0000 > bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled: >> On 25/03/2025 15:09, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >> >>> You're the one extolling the virtues of a single source file, not me. >>> >>> Here's an idea - instead of outputting C why don't you make it output >>> machine code instead. Might be more useful. >> >> >> What makes you think I don't? The C code is mainly for people who can't >> or won't run Windows binaries. It also makes it incredibly easy to build >>from source (gcc prog.c). >> >> In my case I want to apply gcc-level optimisations that my compiler >> doesn't do. So it has to be C code if I want that final 25% extra speed. > > Whats this? You mean your amazing zippy fast compiler can't optimise for shit? Well, it is compiled with itself and it manages that in 70ms despite lacking the optimiser. Otherwise it might do it it 60ms. It is amazingly fast either way. > Maybe gcc isn't so bad after all eh? I'm not complaining about the quality of its code. However, it is 200 times bigger than my product, and can take 100 times longer to compile code, which in the current project might yield 10-25% extra speed. That is only needed here because I'm compiling benchmark results to compare with other products that will also be using the best possible optimisation. For everyday use however, that small boost is not relevant, and not worth the extra hassle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-26 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20250326110011.634@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #391658 |
On 2025-03-26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote: > Whats this? You mean your amazing zippy fast compiler can't optimise for shit? > Maybe gcc isn't so bad after all eh? Ah, but: - gcc doesn't produce better code than it did 25 years go, when it was at least an order of magnitude smaller and two orders faster. At least not for tightly written programs where the C programmer has done optimizing at the source level, so that the compiler has little more to think about beyond good instruction selection and cleaning up the pessimizations it has itself introduced. - gcc is still pretty slow when you have no optimization enabled (-O0). -- 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 | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 00:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs25oi$2pqb$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #391698 |
Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2025-03-26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>> Whats this? You mean your amazing zippy fast compiler can't optimise for shit?
>> Maybe gcc isn't so bad after all eh?
>
> Ah, but:
>
>
> - gcc doesn't produce better code than it did 25 years go, when it
> was at least an order of magnitude smaller and two orders faster.
> At least not for tightly written programs where the C programmer
> has done optimizing at the source level, so that the compiler has
> little more to think about beyond good instruction selection and
> cleaning up the pessimizations it has itself introduced.
No, gcc produces better code. Both 25 years ago and now one
can find situations where gcc output could be improved by
rather simple transformations, but it is less frequent now.
Concerning "optimizing at the source level", modern machines
have instructions that can not be directly expressed at
source level, but which can speed up resulting programs.
In particular vector instructions. Modern gcc is smart enough
to realize that code using separate scalar variables perform
some (not all!) operations in parallel and use vector
instructions.
How much improvement? Probably in 5-15% range on average
programs for hand-optimized programs.
Concerning size, you are right, there is significant increase in
size. Concerning speed, that is debatable. On the same machine
the same somewhat silly file containing just declarations needs
9.894s using gcc-12.2 and 10.668s using gcc-3.4.6. Different
silly example containg trivial code needs 27.947s using gcc-12.2
and 12.627s using gcc-3.4.6. Both were at default setting
(no optimization). As you see, depending on content of the
file gcc-12.2 can be slightly faster or few times slower than
gcc-3.4.6 when doing non-optimizing compilation.
Modern gcc can do whole-program optimization, which can take
a lot more time than function-by-function optimization done
by gcc-3.4.6. But IME on realistic programs (in particular
split into moderately sized files) optimization increases
time, but that is few times, both for gcc-12.2 and for
older versions. In other words, typically optimization
does not lead to catastrophic increase in compile time,
both for modern and old gcc.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QadFP.1351322$zz8b.870017@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #391723 |
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: >> On 2025-03-26, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote: >>> Whats this? You mean your amazing zippy fast compiler can't optimise for shit? >>> Maybe gcc isn't so bad after all eh? >> >> Ah, but: >> >> >> - gcc doesn't produce better code than it did 25 years go, when it >> was at least an order of magnitude smaller and two orders faster. >> At least not for tightly written programs where the C programmer >> has done optimizing at the source level, so that the compiler has >> little more to think about beyond good instruction selection and >> cleaning up the pessimizations it has itself introduced. > >No, gcc produces better code. Both 25 years ago and now one >can find situations where gcc output could be improved by >rather simple transformations, but it is less frequent now. <snip> > In other words, typically optimization >does not lead to catastrophic increase in compile time, >both for modern and old gcc. There are some pathological cases; I have one source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly buried in the overall compile time when using parallel make. The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; but that would require substantial changes to the rest of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. Since the run time of the project is far, far, far more important than the compile time, we apply our resources to improving functionality and performance for the end user of the product rather than worry about a few minutes of compile time for the developers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86r02iicl3.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391737 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > [...] I have one > source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile > when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly > buried in the overall compile time when using parallel > make. > > The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; > but that would require substantial changes to the rest > of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development > testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. How long does it take compiling with -O1?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JUzFP.529511$f81.413611@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #391739 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> [...] I have one >> source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile >> when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly >> buried in the overall compile time when using parallel >> make. >> >> The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; >> but that would require substantial changes to the rest >> of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development >> testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. > >How long does it take compiling with -O1? Using -O1 saves 14 seconds on the long-pole. $ time mr -s -j96 COMPILE g.cpp BUILD lib/lib_g.so BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 BUILD TARGET sim real 14m0.76s user 13m52.28s sys 0m20.13s $ time md -s -j96 COMPILE g.cpp BUILD lib_g.so BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 BUILD TARGET sim real 13m46.49s user 13m42.17s sys 0m16.66s To be clear, we know that this is ridiculous, the generated header file totals 1.25 million lines, including a single function with over 200,000 SLOC. Feature creep, antique algorithms, screwed up third-party ip-xact collateral and tight development schedules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 16:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs6jeh$31p79$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391775 |
On 28/03/2025 16:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> [...] I have one >>> source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile >>> when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly >>> buried in the overall compile time when using parallel >>> make. >>> >>> The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; >>> but that would require substantial changes to the rest >>> of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development >>> testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. >> >> How long does it take compiling with -O1? > > Using -O1 saves 14 seconds on the long-pole. > > > $ time mr -s -j96 > COMPILE g.cpp > BUILD lib/lib_g.so > BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 > BUILD TARGET sim > > real 14m0.76s > user 13m52.28s > sys 0m20.13s > > $ time md -s -j96 > COMPILE g.cpp > BUILD lib_g.so > BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 > BUILD TARGET sim > > real 13m46.49s > user 13m42.17s > sys 0m16.66s > > To be clear, we know that this is ridiculous, the generated > header file totals 1.25 million lines, including a single > function with over 200,000 SLOC. Feature creep, antique > algorithms, screwed up third-party ip-xact collateral and > tight development schedules. So, 13:40 minutes for 1.25M lines? (I assume that header contains code not just declarations.) That would make it 1.5Kloc/second, but it also apparently over 96 cores (or threads)? That comes to 16 lines per second per thread. Yeah, ridiculous is almost an understatment. That 200K lines in one function looks suspicious. Modern compilers like to use SSA in functions, but that can yield huge numbers of temporaries. >>> Compiling with -O0 for development >>> testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. That would need 100x speedup with -O0 (for, say, 8 seconds), but I've never seen that. However, it would give 150Klps over 96 threads, which is plausible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dQDFP.256596$D_V4.171478@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #391776 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 28/03/2025 16:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> >>>> [...] I have one >>>> source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile >>>> when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly >>>> buried in the overall compile time when using parallel >>>> make. >>>> >>>> The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; >>>> but that would require substantial changes to the rest >>>> of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development >>>> testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. >>> >>> How long does it take compiling with -O1? >> >> Using -O1 saves 14 seconds on the long-pole. >> >> >> $ time mr -s -j96 >> COMPILE g.cpp >> BUILD lib/lib_g.so >> BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 >> BUILD TARGET sim >> >> real 14m0.76s >> user 13m52.28s >> sys 0m20.13s >> >> $ time md -s -j96 >> COMPILE g.cpp >> BUILD lib_g.so >> BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 >> BUILD TARGET sim >> >> real 13m46.49s >> user 13m42.17s >> sys 0m16.66s >> >> To be clear, we know that this is ridiculous, the generated >> header file totals 1.25 million lines, including a single >> function with over 200,000 SLOC. Feature creep, antique >> algorithms, screwed up third-party ip-xact collateral and >> tight development schedules. > >So, 13:40 minutes for 1.25M lines? (I assume that header contains code >not just declarations.) > >That would make it 1.5Kloc/second, but it also apparently over 96 cores >(or threads)? That comes to 16 lines per second per thread. The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. > >That 200K lines in one function looks suspicious Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs7788$3ml6o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391791 |
On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 28/03/2025 16:13, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> >>>>> [...] I have one >>>>> source file that takes almost 7 minutes to compile >>>>> when using -O3 on a very-high-end xeon box. Mostly >>>>> buried in the overall compile time when using parallel >>>>> make. >>>>> >>>>> The code could be restructured to compile in a few seconds; >>>>> but that would require substantial changes to the rest >>>>> of the codebase. Compiling with -O0 for development >>>>> testing reduces the compile time to a few seconds. >>>> >>>> How long does it take compiling with -O1? >>> >>> Using -O1 saves 14 seconds on the long-pole. >>> >>> >>> $ time mr -s -j96 >>> COMPILE g.cpp >>> BUILD lib/lib_g.so >>> BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 >>> BUILD TARGET sim >>> >>> real 14m0.76s >>> user 13m52.28s >>> sys 0m20.13s >>> >>> $ time md -s -j96 >>> COMPILE g.cpp >>> BUILD lib_g.so >>> BUILDSO libsim.so.1.0 >>> BUILD TARGET sim >>> >>> real 13m46.49s >>> user 13m42.17s >>> sys 0m16.66s >>> >>> To be clear, we know that this is ridiculous, the generated >>> header file totals 1.25 million lines, including a single >>> function with over 200,000 SLOC. Feature creep, antique >>> algorithms, screwed up third-party ip-xact collateral and >>> tight development schedules. >> >> So, 13:40 minutes for 1.25M lines? (I assume that header contains code >> not just declarations.) >> >> That would make it 1.5Kloc/second, but it also apparently over 96 cores >> (or threads)? That comes to 16 lines per second per thread. > > The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was > compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. So what was that -j96 about? > >> >> That 200K lines in one function looks suspicious > > Why? I thought I explained. Compile-time for a long function can increase non-linearly in a complex compiler. It could also use up more memory than the same line-count but split into separate functions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 15:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pli0wztv.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391793 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
[...]
>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was
>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds.
>
> So what was that -j96 about?
"-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might invoke
gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be
single-threaded.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs78vb$3o6s2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391794 |
On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: > [...] >>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was >>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. >> >> So what was that -j96 about? > > "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might invoke > gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be > single-threaded. > So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13 minutes, or multiple? In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87ldsoww41.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391796 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was
>>>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds.
>>>
>>> So what was that -j96 about?
>> "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might
>> invoke
>> gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be
>> single-threaded.
>
> So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13
> minutes, or multiple?
>
> In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or
> does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it?
I haven't done any measurements, but I don't know what's unclear.
If a single thread was compute bound for 13:46, using "-j96"
won't make that single thread run any faster, but it can enable
"make" to do other things while that single thread is running.
It's also common to use "-j" without an argument, to run as many
jobs simultaneously as possible, or "-j$(nproc)" to run as many
parallel jobs as the number of processing units available (if you
have the "nproc" command; it's part of GNU coreutils).
I can imagine "-j" causing problems if dependencies are expressed
incorrectly, but I haven't run into such a problem myself.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-29 00:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs7f33$3u1sk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391797 |
On 28/03/2025 23:53, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was >>>>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. >>>> >>>> So what was that -j96 about? >>> "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might >>> invoke >>> gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be >>> single-threaded. >> >> So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13 >> minutes, or multiple? >> >> In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or >> does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it? > > I haven't done any measurements, but I don't know what's unclear. > > If a single thread was compute bound for 13:46, using "-j96" > won't make that single thread run any faster, but it can enable > "make" to do other things while that single thread is running. > It's also common to use "-j" without an argument, to run as many > jobs simultaneously as possible, or "-j$(nproc)" to run as many > parallel jobs as the number of processing units available (if you > have the "nproc" command; it's part of GNU coreutils). > > I can imagine "-j" causing problems if dependencies are expressed > incorrectly, but I haven't run into such a problem myself. > Are you saying that this job consists of single a C (or C++) source file, so it is not possible to parallelise the processes necessary to compile it? (I've not idea of gcc's capabilities there.) That would be funny given that I've had criticisms myself for attempting to compile monolithic C programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-28 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87h63cwqoo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #391798 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 28/03/2025 23:53, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was
>>>>>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what was that -j96 about?
>>>> "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might
>>>> invoke
>>>> gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be
>>>> single-threaded.
>>>
>>> So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13
>>> minutes, or multiple?
>>>
>>> In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or
>>> does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it?
>> I haven't done any measurements, but I don't know what's unclear.
>> If a single thread was compute bound for 13:46, using "-j96"
>> won't make that single thread run any faster, but it can enable
>> "make" to do other things while that single thread is running.
>> It's also common to use "-j" without an argument, to run as many
>> jobs simultaneously as possible, or "-j$(nproc)" to run as many
>> parallel jobs as the number of processing units available (if you
>> have the "nproc" command; it's part of GNU coreutils).
>> I can imagine "-j" causing problems if dependencies are expressed
>> incorrectly, but I haven't run into such a problem myself.
>
> Are you saying that this job consists of single a C (or C++) source
> file, so it is not possible to parallelise the processes necessary to
> compile it? (I've not idea of gcc's capabilities there.)
Huh??
No, I didn't say that. I was merely trying to explain how "make -j"
works, since you seemed to be confused about it. I'll assume you
understand it now. If you're curious about the source code, ask
Scott Lurndal; I don't know anything about it (and I don't know where
you got the idea that I do).
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-29 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%8VFP.256598$D_V4.88679@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #391799 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 28/03/2025 23:53, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>>> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was >>>>>>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what was that -j96 about? >>>>> "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might >>>>> invoke >>>>> gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will still be >>>>> single-threaded. >>>> >>>> So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13 >>>> minutes, or multiple? >>>> >>>> In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or >>>> does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it? >>> I haven't done any measurements, but I don't know what's unclear. >>> If a single thread was compute bound for 13:46, using "-j96" >>> won't make that single thread run any faster, but it can enable >>> "make" to do other things while that single thread is running. >>> It's also common to use "-j" without an argument, to run as many >>> jobs simultaneously as possible, or "-j$(nproc)" to run as many >>> parallel jobs as the number of processing units available (if you >>> have the "nproc" command; it's part of GNU coreutils). >>> I can imagine "-j" causing problems if dependencies are expressed >>> incorrectly, but I haven't run into such a problem myself. >> >> Are you saying that this job consists of single a C (or C++) source >> file, so it is not possible to parallelise the processes necessary to >> compile it? (I've not idea of gcc's capabilities there.) > >Huh?? > >No, I didn't say that. I was merely trying to explain how "make -j" >works, since you seemed to be confused about it. I'll assume you >understand it now. If you're curious about the source code, ask >Scott Lurndal; I don't know anything about it (and I don't know where >you got the idea that I do). Bart needs to argue about something. Anything. It is a single source file, compiled with a single instance of g++. That -j was provided to make is irrelevent. And this actually is a degenerate example of what happens when one tries to include an entire program in a single source file, something that bart seems to rather senseless continue to advocate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-29 13:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vs8phl$1adfu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391798 |
On 29/03/2025 01:32, bart wrote: > On 28/03/2025 23:53, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 28/03/2025 22:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 28/03/2025 20:41, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> The gnu compiler is not multithreaded. The single thread was >>>>>> compute bound for 13 minutes and 46 seconds. >>>>> >>>>> So what was that -j96 about? >>>> "-j96" is an option to GNU make, not to the compiler. It might >>>> invoke >>>> gcc multiple times in parallel, but each invocation of gcc will >>>> still be >>>> single-threaded. >>> >>> So, is there just once instance of gcc at work during those 13 >>> minutes, or multiple? >>> >>> In other words, would it take longer than 13:40 mins without it, or >>> does it help? If -j96 makes no difference, then why specify it? >> >> I haven't done any measurements, but I don't know what's unclear. >> >> If a single thread was compute bound for 13:46, using "-j96" >> won't make that single thread run any faster, but it can enable >> "make" to do other things while that single thread is running. >> It's also common to use "-j" without an argument, to run as many >> jobs simultaneously as possible, or "-j$(nproc)" to run as many >> parallel jobs as the number of processing units available (if you >> have the "nproc" command; it's part of GNU coreutils). >> >> I can imagine "-j" causing problems if dependencies are expressed >> incorrectly, but I haven't run into such a problem myself. >> > > Are you saying that this job consists of single a C (or C++) source > file, so it is not possible to parallelise the processes necessary to > compile it? (I've not idea of gcc's capabilities there.) > > That would be funny given that I've had criticisms myself for attempting > to compile monolithic C programs. My guess - and only Scott can say for sure - is that his software contains a very large number of files, no doubt some C and some C++. Today's lesson comes in three parts. First, "make -j". When you use "make", the "make" program will coordinate all the programs needed to do the build - running gcc on source files, running pre-processing steps, post-processing steps, linkers, analysers, documentation programs, little utility programs - anything that needs to be done for the build. "make" does this in an order to match the dependencies - if action "A" depends on the output from action "B", then action "A" is not started until "B" is finished. And if the inputs needed for "B" have not changed since it's output was last generated, then action "B" doesn't need to be run at all. The tasks are collected together into a directed acyclic graph, using the partial ordering of dependencies. When you use "make -j", "make" will run all these tasks in parallel. The partial order of the DAG is preserved. So if you have a 96 core system, and you have hundreds of files that need compiled in this build, and you run "make -j 96", then "make" will coordinate 96 instances of the compiler (or other needed tasks) running at the same time. It won't run more than 96 of them - as compilations finish, they free up "job slots" in make's "job server", and other compilations or tasks are started. When there are not enough tasks that can be done (perhaps due to the dependencies), fewer tasks will run in parallel. As always with multi-tasking of any sort, if there is a long-running task, then it takes the time it takes - you can't speed it up, no matter how many cpu cores you have. So one of Scott's compiles takes 13 minutes. "make -j" won't speed that up. But it will mean that any other compilations can be done in parallel. Maybe he has 600 other files that each take 30 seconds to compile. With "make -j", the build takes the 13 minutes it has to for the one awkward file - all the rest are compiled while that is going on. With non-parallel "make", it would take 5 hours (if I've done my sums correctly). Thus "make -j" is a really good idea, even if you have a particularly long-running task (compilation or anything else). Second, why is gcc single-threaded when compiles can sometimes take a long time? The prime reason for that is that multi-threaded compilation is very difficult. There are some aspects of it that could be run in parallel, such as some of the analysis and optimisation could be split per function. But the overhead of multi-threading and keeping shared data and information safe and synchronous would be significant, and you would still typically run the big time-consuming part - the inter-procedural optimisations - as a single thread. In practice, most big pieces of software are build of many files, so parallelising at the build level (such as "make -j") is easier, safer, and more efficient. The bottleneck of many big builds is the link process. Traditionally, this needs to collect together all the object files and static libraries. In more modern systems, especially with C++, it also de-duplicates sections. Since linking is a task that usually can't begin until all the compilation is finished, and it is usually just one single task, it makes sense to focus on making linking multi-threaded. And this is what we see with modern linkers - a great deal of effort is put into multi-threading the linking process (especially when partitions from the link are passed back to the compiler for link-time optimisation and code generation). The third point from this thread, is why is gcc so slow on a particular C file? As you have noted before, some aspects of compilation and optimisation - particularly inter-procedural optimisation - increases super-linearly with size, both the size of individual functions and the number of functions. I don't know what this particular file is, but given what I know of Scotts work and my own experience, I think this could be a generated file for hardware simulation. These typically lead to very large files and very large functions, with a great many variables that are used in simple expressions or statements (like "if (node_1234.enabled && clock.rising_edge) node_1234.next = node_1235.output"). Tracking all these variables and their lifetimes, and re-arranging code in an efficient manner, becomes a very time consuming problem for the compiler. But that effort can make a significant difference to the run-time of the simulation, which will normally be orders of magnitude longer than the compilation time. Thus it can be worth having code structured this way. It is not a typical use-case for compilation, and thus not a major focus for compiler development, but it is used in real systems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web