Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #379646 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-12-26 16:59 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-01-08 22:20 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 671 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-26 16:59 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2023-12-26 17:45 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-26 22:50 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-12-27 17:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-31 14:45 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-28 17:34 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2023-12-28 14:11 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-28 13:13 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-28 21:47 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-28 15:12 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-20 14:29 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-21 04:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-21 10:56 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-21 12:11 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-21 17:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-21 21:57 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-31 12:43 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-31 13:41 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-02-01 09:19 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-03-14 23:11 -0700
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 23:56 -0700
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-03-14 23:12 -0700
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-02-11 17:38 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-28 21:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-28 21:42 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2023-12-28 18:04 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-29 16:11 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-29 16:04 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-29 17:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-28 21:22 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-29 15:52 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2023-12-29 17:27 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-29 11:01 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-29 22:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-12-31 14:40 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-12-31 12:43 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-01 12:57 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-31 18:32 -0800
usleep (Was: Effect of CPP tags) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-12-29 18:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-29 02:35 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-29 13:31 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-12-29 15:58 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-29 10:33 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-29 22:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-30 01:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-30 01:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-31 01:36 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 02:06 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-31 18:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-01 13:09 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-01-03 00:20 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 12:49 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-02 09:11 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-31 21:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-12-31 16:25 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 15:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-31 18:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-31 18:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 19:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 22:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 16:03 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-01 02:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 19:18 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-01 05:38 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 22:56 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-01 08:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-31 20:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-01 15:38 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-31 21:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 13:51 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 00:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 22:57 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 07:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 23:03 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 23:06 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-01 09:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-02 15:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-01 15:44 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 15:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-02 11:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-02 15:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 16:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-02 18:34 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 20:24 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-02 13:00 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-02 13:02 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-03 00:24 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-03 02:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-03 03:29 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 11:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-03 15:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 17:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-03 20:16 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-03 19:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 09:46 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-04 18:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 23:48 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-04 01:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 02:20 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-04 16:08 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 18:35 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-04 20:55 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 20:17 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-04 15:22 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-05 10:03 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-05 18:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 19:25 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-04 21:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-01-04 22:07 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 22:48 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-04 23:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 23:48 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-04 23:25 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 01:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-05 04:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-05 15:05 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 07:58 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-05 17:34 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-05 18:42 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-06 08:39 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 19:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 13:21 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 10:06 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-05 18:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 19:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-05 20:06 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 14:50 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 01:09 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 17:55 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-07 01:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-08 22:56 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-06 10:02 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 22:19 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-05 22:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 02:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-01-05 23:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 01:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-05 18:17 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-06 10:09 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 10:27 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-06 15:23 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 13:40 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 00:09 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 00:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 16:40 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-07 03:30 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-07 15:48 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 15:34 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-08 13:50 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 15:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-08 20:50 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 01:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-09 08:30 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 11:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-09 15:56 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 17:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-09 19:56 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 20:52 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 13:15 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 21:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-09 21:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 22:22 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 09:37 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 12:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 14:17 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 14:31 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 16:51 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 18:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 20:55 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 20:49 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-11 11:26 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:19 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-11 00:30 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 01:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:25 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-11 17:56 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 18:31 +0000
Make (was: Re: Effect of CPP tags) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-15 21:01 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 02:29 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-10 17:46 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-10 14:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 17:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-10 19:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:30 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 20:27 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 14:22 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-09 17:37 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 23:27 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 16:05 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-10 00:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 16:49 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-10 02:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 19:17 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-14 09:26 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-10 11:22 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-10 01:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-10 02:57 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-10 05:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-10 06:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 09:50 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 23:40 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 11:10 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:10 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:11 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 11:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-11 11:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 14:59 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-01-11 14:58 +0000
A good place to discuss Makefiles? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-11 16:56 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-10 02:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-10 02:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 11:16 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-10 14:49 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 18:13 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 10:39 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 19:24 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 11:39 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 20:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 20:20 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 12:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-10 21:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-10 22:36 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-01-10 21:39 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 02:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 11:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 12:19 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 16:13 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-11 17:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 21:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-11 23:03 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 23:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-12 09:08 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 18:49 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 12:16 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-11 22:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 23:20 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us> - 2024-01-11 19:02 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 16:23 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-12 14:40 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 16:01 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 16:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 17:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-12 20:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-12 17:34 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 17:09 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-12 19:02 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 21:01 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 13:07 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-12 21:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 00:13 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 16:47 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 01:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 17:40 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-13 15:07 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-13 16:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-13 04:17 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 12:03 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-13 13:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 22:39 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-14 00:02 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 14:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-13 15:26 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 00:36 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-14 16:20 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 13:19 +0100
Makefile as an implementation instance of a transformation process (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-15 15:46 +0100
Re: Makefile as an implementation instance of a transformation process (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-15 15:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-14 09:54 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 18:17 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us> - 2024-01-14 13:44 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2024-01-14 19:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 19:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 13:14 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 09:51 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 11:39 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 13:57 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 17:40 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 17:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 18:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 19:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 19:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 20:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 23:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 00:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 18:23 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 14:22 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 15:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 21:16 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 16:45 +0100
Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 06:01 +0100
Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 11:44 +0100
Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 12:21 +0100
Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 14:10 +0100
Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 19:35 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 13:48 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 17:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 17:43 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 13:10 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-15 11:22 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 22:22 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 01:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 06:54 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-13 14:08 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 01:13 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 12:57 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 12:45 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 14:11 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 19:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 20:09 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 21:06 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 12:41 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 17:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-12 19:06 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 16:50 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 17:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 17:59 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-12 19:10 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 18:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 19:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 20:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 05:15 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 12:59 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 04:36 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 05:01 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 20:05 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-13 04:31 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 07:13 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 19:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-12 20:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-13 05:12 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-13 04:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 20:52 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 20:57 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 21:39 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-14 09:22 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 18:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 13:11 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 14:58 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 01:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 20:44 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 20:39 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 21:47 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 22:37 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 12:21 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 00:52 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 12:09 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-12 22:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-12 23:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2024-01-12 23:30 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-13 00:16 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-17 11:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-17 18:47 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-17 19:42 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-17 22:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-17 23:48 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-17 16:23 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-18 00:25 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 00:47 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-18 04:30 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 10:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-18 19:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 20:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 11:07 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-19 11:17 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 12:41 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-19 13:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 15:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-19 15:03 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 18:12 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-19 18:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-19 18:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 19:48 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-19 17:32 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-19 19:50 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-19 14:18 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-19 14:14 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-19 16:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags dave_thompson_2@comcast.net - 2024-02-26 04:17 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-02-26 15:56 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 15:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-18 21:47 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-18 23:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-18 23:29 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 13:23 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-21 00:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 12:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-12 21:31 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 15:04 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-14 12:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 00:34 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 07:07 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 23:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 07:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 17:04 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 17:29 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-15 23:24 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 18:18 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 14:38 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 16:55 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 17:08 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-17 02:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 21:34 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 18:35 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-17 03:03 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 19:59 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 13:28 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-17 12:55 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 14:24 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 20:02 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 11:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 14:42 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-16 15:08 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 16:54 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 15:57 +0000
CPU's MAC instructions (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 06:25 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-16 18:52 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 14:35 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 15:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 17:35 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-15 18:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 19:19 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 12:31 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-16 01:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 11:30 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 15:06 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 13:43 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-17 13:00 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-18 13:00 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 13:28 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 21:58 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 21:55 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 22:02 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 15:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-16 18:39 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-17 00:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-17 16:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 21:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-18 21:44 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-15 12:28 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 16:39 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 16:23 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 17:30 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-15 21:25 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-15 20:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 15:08 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 16:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 19:03 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 18:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 23:00 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-16 22:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-01-16 22:18 +0000
NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 07:11 +0100
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 14:17 +0100
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-17 16:33 +0000
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 18:47 +0100
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-17 18:04 +0000
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 19:15 +0100
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2024-01-18 17:22 +0200
Re: NO vs. SE (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2024-03-24 14:24 +0200
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 12:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 16:29 +0100
Interpreter Dispatch in C (was: Effect of CPP Tags) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 19:21 +0000
Re: Interpreter Dispatch in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 23:24 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 15:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-16 18:46 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-16 22:42 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 14:25 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-17 14:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-17 19:07 +0100
Optimization and inline assembly (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-17 07:07 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 18:58 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-14 19:01 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-12 09:52 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 09:41 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-14 09:20 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-11 13:24 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-01-11 13:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-11 14:55 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 12:27 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 16:24 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 16:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 16:43 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-09 20:05 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 15:54 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-10 01:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 15:45 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-10 19:33 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 15:48 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 15:49 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 22:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 11:23 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-10 19:23 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 20:46 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-10 08:21 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 19:20 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-09 20:01 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 13:12 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 21:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-01-09 21:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-09 16:42 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 12:04 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 18:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-09 12:11 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 21:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-09 01:50 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-08 22:28 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-09 07:38 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-07 02:12 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 01:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 01:47 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 02:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 17:15 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 02:25 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-06 19:28 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 15:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-07 15:51 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 01:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-07 20:35 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 13:28 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 10:25 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 18:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 19:01 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 11:22 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 11:21 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-08 16:00 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-08 18:02 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 10:39 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-08 21:36 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 10:32 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-08 21:41 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-01-08 08:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-08 09:59 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 12:53 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 14:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-06 15:28 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-01-06 09:56 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 15:57 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-06 23:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 00:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 00:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 01:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 02:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 12:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 19:29 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 22:41 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-07 23:27 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-06 15:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-07 03:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 11:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-07 14:41 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-07 22:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-07 16:06 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-05 15:54 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 09:55 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 12:15 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 15:29 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2024-01-06 05:33 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-03 17:41 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 21:32 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 15:13 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-03 13:42 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 12:46 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 12:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-04 12:51 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-04 18:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-04 10:43 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-04 17:39 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-01-04 12:33 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-04 10:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-04 21:59 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-02 15:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 16:38 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-02 20:23 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 19:35 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-02 20:54 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-01-03 20:28 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 21:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-01 23:08 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 19:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2023-12-29 11:58 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-29 17:44 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-29 10:54 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-29 20:19 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2023-12-30 06:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-12-30 16:16 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-30 23:21 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-12-30 19:14 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-31 01:34 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 02:18 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-12-30 23:46 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 15:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2023-12-31 17:26 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2023-12-31 19:23 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2023-12-31 14:46 -0500
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 15:49 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-31 23:46 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 01:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 02:00 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 11:56 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 13:06 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 20:13 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 20:20 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 21:38 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 22:51 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 23:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 00:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 01:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 01:58 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 20:41 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-16 22:21 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> - 2024-01-02 06:23 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 06:47 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 12:24 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 19:04 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-02 20:11 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-02 20:43 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-02 23:55 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 02:08 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-03 02:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 12:10 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> - 2024-01-03 13:03 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-03 19:14 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-03 15:33 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-01-03 08:37 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 15:54 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-01-02 20:05 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Blue-Maned_Hawk <bluemanedhawk@invalid.invalid> - 2024-01-01 15:45 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 20:06 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 04:48 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 23:00 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-01 21:40 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 15:49 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-01-02 00:06 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 16:29 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-01-01 16:38 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 23:01 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-12-31 18:37 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 16:59 -0600
Re: Effect of CPP tags Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2023-12-30 20:12 +0000
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-31 16:07 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 16:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2023-12-31 18:31 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 19:08 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-21 12:36 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2024-01-01 05:56 +0100
Re: Effect of CPP tags "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-12-31 22:59 -0800
Re: Effect of CPP tags Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-01-08 22:20 -0800
Page 26 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 34 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 15:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <unsjg4$3krn3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379972 |
On 1/9/2024 5:05 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >> On 09/01/2024 22:37, James Kuyper wrote: >>> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because >>> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's >>> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into >>> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, >> >> So why doesn't a /C/ compiler put itself into conforming mode? > > You didn't use any C compilers, at least, you didn't use them as C > compilers. At least two of them (I don't know about tcc) can compile > standard C, but only if you instruct them to do so. When you fail to > tell them so, they are not standard C compilers, they are compilers for > non-standard variants of C. > >> It seems THAT is too hard for it to understand! >> >> Seriously, why don't they do that? > > Because they don't want to. The language that they compile by default is > a language that they like better than standard C. People like me who > value standard conformance are sufficiently common that they provide > options which enable standard conformance, but their target audience > WANTS support for a C-like language that they like better than standard > C, and that's what they provide. > >> Then lots of people who don't bother with those fiddly options don't >> get the wrong impression about what C actually allows. > > Most people who don't bother checking out the available options are > generally primarily interested in knowing what the compiler they are > actually using allows - if they cared about standard conformance, they'd > check whether the compiler claimed to be standard conforming, and would > quickly notice that the compiler only makes such claims when invoked > with particular options. People who don't bother making such checks, > despite wanting standard conformance, quickly learn that they don't > actually get it - except for you, of course. That's something you seem > incapable of learning. CDECL, ahhh the C ABI. Nice! Lets use it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 01:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240109171613.513@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379968 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > On 09/01/2024 22:37, James Kuyper wrote: > >> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because >> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's >> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into >> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, > > So why doesn't a /C/ compiler put itself into conforming mode? That's like asking, why don't they just switch to the Tokyo dialect in Osaka? Vendors like their dialect of C and promote that in their product. Users who want to write portable code and be alerted when they stray from that program are the ones who have to configure something. The GNU Coding Standards states it explicitly: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Non_002dGNU-Standards "For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are prohibited. How silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which were later adopted as part of the standard. If you want these constructs to give an error message as “required” by the standard, you must specify ‘--pedantic’, which was implemented only so that we can say “GCC is a 100% implementation of the standard”, not because there is any reason to actually use it. There you go; the GNU project doesn't think you have any reason to identify situations when your program violates ISO C, such that it requires a diagnostic and is not required to be translated. > Then lots of people who don't bother with those fiddly options don't get > the wrong impression about what C actually allows. What C allows is for dialects which can be called some kind of C. Microsoft C, GNU C, .. If people experiment with GNU C, and thus what GNU C allows, but then think C allows it, they are simply wrong; they don't understand the difference between a common language and a dialect. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 15:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <unsiv1$3kmu8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379973 |
On 1/9/2024 5:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 22:37, James Kuyper wrote: >> >>> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because >>> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's >>> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into >>> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, >> >> So why doesn't a /C/ compiler put itself into conforming mode? > > That's like asking, why don't they just switch to the Tokyo dialect > in Osaka? https://youtu.be/yEJCQdee8vk ;^) > > Vendors like their dialect of C and promote that in their product. > > Users who want to write portable code and be alerted when they stray > from that program are the ones who have to configure something. > > The GNU Coding Standards states it explicitly: > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Non_002dGNU-Standards > > "For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are > prohibited. How silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which > were later adopted as part of the standard. If you want these > constructs to give an error message as “required” by the standard, you > must specify ‘--pedantic’, which was implemented only so that we can > say “GCC is a 100% implementation of the standard”, not because there > is any reason to actually use it. > > There you go; the GNU project doesn't think you have any reason to > identify situations when your program violates ISO C, such that it > requires a diagnostic and is not required to be translated. > >> Then lots of people who don't bother with those fiddly options don't get >> the wrong impression about what C actually allows. > > What C allows is for dialects which can be called some kind of C. > Microsoft C, GNU C, .. > > If people experiment with GNU C, and thus what GNU C allows, but then > think C allows it, they are simply wrong; they don't understand the > difference between a common language and a dialect. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 19:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <unnnhk$2roro$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379967 |
On 1/9/2024 2:37 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>> On 09/01/2024 21:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> I did then try to fix that, but stopped because of interactions with
>>>> actual zero-length arrays (I would need to be fully immersed to make
>>>> the changes).
>>>>
>>>> Then the next day I found that C doesn't even /have/ zero-length
>>>> arrays: you can't have an empty array; how about that? I thought C
>>>> was zero-based!
>>> [...]
>>> Have you considered learning the language before trying to implement
>>> it?
>>
>> Which version of C do you suggest; the one where:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>>
>> int main(void) {
>> int A[0];
>> int B[]={};
>>
>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(A));
>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(B));
>> }
>>
>> compiles fine with tcc, gcc and clang, and displays 0 for the sizes?
>>
>> Or the one where those produce warnings? Or the one where it actually fails?
>>
>> So, if C doesn't have zero-length arrays, why don't I get a fatal error?
>
> 2 Reasons.
> First of all, the only thing that the C standard requires for such code
> is a diagnostic message. It doesn't require that the code compile, and
> it also doesn't require that it not compile. If an implementation
> chooses to create an executable from such code, and if you choose to
> execute it, the standard imposes no requirements on what behavior will
> occur when you do so.
Spooky! Yikes!
>
> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because
> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's
> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into
> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, you're stuck
> with non-conforming behavior. You could, with equal (lack of)
> justification, use a fortran compiler, which also fails to conform to
> the C standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 15:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <unsj3j$3kmu8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380024 |
On 1/10/2024 7:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 1/9/2024 2:37 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>> On 09/01/2024 21:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I did then try to fix that, but stopped because of interactions with
>>>>> actual zero-length arrays (I would need to be fully immersed to make
>>>>> the changes).
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the next day I found that C doesn't even /have/ zero-length
>>>>> arrays: you can't have an empty array; how about that? I thought C
>>>>> was zero-based!
>>>> [...]
>>>> Have you considered learning the language before trying to implement
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> Which version of C do you suggest; the one where:
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> int main(void) {
>>> int A[0];
>>> int B[]={};
>>>
>>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(A));
>>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(B));
>>> }
>>>
>>> compiles fine with tcc, gcc and clang, and displays 0 for the sizes?
>>>
>>> Or the one where those produce warnings? Or the one where it actually
>>> fails?
>>>
>>> So, if C doesn't have zero-length arrays, why don't I get a fatal error?
>>
>> 2 Reasons.
>> First of all, the only thing that the C standard requires for such code
>> is a diagnostic message. It doesn't require that the code compile, and
>> it also doesn't require that it not compile. If an implementation
>> chooses to create an executable from such code, and if you choose to
>> execute it, the standard imposes no requirements on what behavior will
>> occur when you do so.
>
> Spooky! Yikes!
You are just experimenting along, make a bug and it infects the
computer. Monkeys banging on keyboards can create a, well, something?...
Just comic relief. Sorry to but in here.
>
>>
>> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because
>> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's
>> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into
>> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, you're stuck
>> with non-conforming behavior. You could, with equal (lack of)
>> justification, use a fortran compiler, which also fails to conform to
>> the C standard.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 15:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <unsj70$3krn3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380100 |
On 1/12/2024 3:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 1/10/2024 7:33 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 1/9/2024 2:37 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>>> On 09/01/2024 21:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I did then try to fix that, but stopped because of interactions with
>>>>>> actual zero-length arrays (I would need to be fully immersed to make
>>>>>> the changes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the next day I found that C doesn't even /have/ zero-length
>>>>>> arrays: you can't have an empty array; how about that? I thought C
>>>>>> was zero-based!
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Have you considered learning the language before trying to implement
>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> Which version of C do you suggest; the one where:
>>>>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> int main(void) {
>>>> int A[0];
>>>> int B[]={};
>>>>
>>>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(A));
>>>> printf("%zu\n", sizeof(B));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> compiles fine with tcc, gcc and clang, and displays 0 for the sizes?
>>>>
>>>> Or the one where those produce warnings? Or the one where it
>>>> actually fails?
>>>>
>>>> So, if C doesn't have zero-length arrays, why don't I get a fatal
>>>> error?
>>>
>>> 2 Reasons.
>>> First of all, the only thing that the C standard requires for such code
>>> is a diagnostic message. It doesn't require that the code compile, and
>>> it also doesn't require that it not compile. If an implementation
>>> chooses to create an executable from such code, and if you choose to
>>> execute it, the standard imposes no requirements on what behavior will
>>> occur when you do so.
>>
>> Spooky! Yikes!
>
> You are just experimenting along, make a bug and it infects the
> computer. Monkeys banging on keyboards can create a, well, something?...
> Just comic relief. Sorry to but in here.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you didn't get the required diagnostic message is because
>>> none of those programs conforms to any version of the C standard in it's
>>> default mode. Since you've made it clear that putting them into
>>> conforming mode is too complicated for you to understand, you're stuck
>>> with non-conforming behavior. You could, with equal (lack of)
>>> justification, use a fortran compiler, which also fails to conform to
>>> the C standard.
>>
>
https://youtu.be/iLVLfL3QVQQ
;^D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240109135137.49@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379955 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
> On 09/01/2024 18:56, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 18:46, Bart wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find
>>>>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned,
>>>> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>> So you see this in code:
>>>
>>> (*F)(x);
>>>
>>> and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I
>>> thought you wanted that transparency?
>>
>> Yes, I assume F is a pointer to a function - because I assume, unless
>> proven otherwise, that the author of the code is not a complete moron or
>> an evil maniac doing his or her best to confuse people.
>
> Maybe F used to be a pointer, but is now a normal function, and the code
> was not updated. Or maybe a normal function named F is now shadowing the
> more global function pointer F.
That is a risk. It's something that could be diagnosed if it was enough
of a problem for enough people.
GCC can diagnose if a declaration of a function parameter uses
a different style from the definition:
void f(int (int));
void f(int (*pfn)(int)) { ... }
There could easily be a warning when a function is dereferenced.
Someone who wants to always write (*pfn)(args, ...) could benefit
from a related warning when pfn(args, ...) is used instead.
> Don't tell me: gcc has some option to warn of using octal literals. So
> your 'successful' language relies on extensive extra tools (all the
> stuff in that support truck) to keep it useable.
Unfortunately, it is a cynical observation that languages that don't
require tools tend not to attract people.
If you want popularity, you need to make some crap that causes people to
have to band together and generate hacks to solve this and that and
share those hacky solutions with each other.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unlr72$2eqts$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379964 |
On 09/01/2024 23:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: >> Don't tell me: gcc has some option to warn of using octal literals. So >> your 'successful' language relies on extensive extra tools (all the >> stuff in that support truck) to keep it useable. > > Unfortunately, it is a cynical observation that languages that don't > require tools tend not to attract people. A less cynical observation would suggest that a successful language is one that is used a lot, and therefore attracts additional tools that make its use better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 19:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240110111455.765@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379988 |
On 2024-01-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 09/01/2024 23:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > > >>> Don't tell me: gcc has some option to warn of using octal literals. So >>> your 'successful' language relies on extensive extra tools (all the >>> stuff in that support truck) to keep it useable. >> >> Unfortunately, it is a cynical observation that languages that don't >> require tools tend not to attract people. > > A less cynical observation would suggest that a successful language is > one that is used a lot, and therefore attracts additional tools that > make its use better. Also, there is no language for which the implementations have the final word on any program, such that the users cannot imagine needing new kinds of diagnostics. What is a diagnostic? It's something which evaluate a truth-valued proposition about a program, and reports if it is true. A program has a large number of properties about which true propositions can be stated. Any of those truths could potentially be a useful diagnostic to someone. It is not realistic to expect that a language specification can state all the propositions that may be diagnosed, such that no others may be diagnosed. Furthermore, users may want to be informed about certain programs which are correct by the language, but which have some undesirable property, specific to their requirements, such as a local coding standard or even application-specific requirements. E.g. a C program which puts sensitive info into an improperly procured temporary file might be correct by ISO C, but we can imagine a sophisticated diagnostic identifying the situation. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 20:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unms6r$2k3ol$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380002 |
On 10/01/2024 20:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-10, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 23:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: >> >> >>>> Don't tell me: gcc has some option to warn of using octal literals. So >>>> your 'successful' language relies on extensive extra tools (all the >>>> stuff in that support truck) to keep it useable. >>> >>> Unfortunately, it is a cynical observation that languages that don't >>> require tools tend not to attract people. >> >> A less cynical observation would suggest that a successful language is >> one that is used a lot, and therefore attracts additional tools that >> make its use better. > > Also, there is no language for which the implementations have the final > word on any program, such that the users cannot imagine needing new > kinds of diagnostics. > > What is a diagnostic? It's something which evaluate a > truth-valued proposition about a program, and reports if it > is true. > > A program has a large number of properties about which true propositions > can be stated. Any of those truths could potentially be a useful > diagnostic to someone. > > It is not realistic to expect that a language specification can state > all the propositions that may be diagnosed, such that no others may be > diagnosed. > > Furthermore, users may want to be informed about certain programs which > are correct by the language, but which have some undesirable property, > specific to their requirements, such as a local coding standard or > even application-specific requirements. > > E.g. a C program which puts sensitive info into an improperly procured > temporary file might be correct by ISO C, but we can imagine a > sophisticated diagnostic identifying the situation. > Agreed (on all points). People have wildly different requirements. The gcc flags I want for my builds would be entirely unsuitable for the builds you do, and vice versa. Bart's idea that we can all use a single simple command is because he lives in a tiny little bubble with himself at the centre, and other people's needs or wants are so irrelevant to him that he doesn't even see that they exist. As far as Bart's concerned, it's easier to change his language and compiler than to use a flag when invoking a tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-10 08:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unlgih$2dctb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379955 |
On 09/01/2024 21:52, Bart wrote: > On 09/01/2024 18:56, David Brown wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 18:46, Bart wrote: >>> On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote: >>> >>>>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find >>>>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason. >>>> >>>> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned, >>>> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant. >>> >>> So you see this in code: >>> >>> (*F)(x); >>> >>> and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I >>> thought you wanted that transparency? >> >> Yes, I assume F is a pointer to a function - because I assume, unless >> proven otherwise, that the author of the code is not a complete moron >> or an evil maniac doing his or her best to confuse people. > > Maybe F used to be a pointer, but is now a normal function, and the code > was not updated. Or maybe a normal function named F is now shadowing the > more global function pointer F. And maybe the program was written by flying pigs. Inventing convoluted scenarios does not reduce your obsession over an irrelevant detail that does not bother anyone - even if they (as I do) agree that it's odd and not a feature that is useful to real code. Some people write bad and incomprehensible code - a (*F)(x) call is then the least of your problems. Some people write good and clear code, and this kind of call will never occur (when F is not a pointer variable). And yes, sometimes even the best programmers will make a mistake or forget something, and one in a million such mistakes might be around this particular syntactic feature. I think we can live with those odds. <Snip off-topic self-congratulations>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 19:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240109104054.516@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379948 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote: >> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote: > >>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find >>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason. >> >> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned, >> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant. > > So you see this in code: > > (*F)(x); > > and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I > thought you wanted that transparency? The use of (*pf)(args, ...) is unnecessary and in my experience, rare. It's a style used to emphasize that this is an indirect call. I probably first saw that ages ago in some XWindow sources or examples. I don't think I've ever seen that used on a function, as in (*strcmp)(str, "foo") which would be a kind of misuse, like a deliberately misleading comment. (Was that explicit dereference ever required in some versions of C or C compilers?) (*pf)(args, ...) style for indirections does have something to recommend it. If it is consistently and appropriately used, it clearly indicates the function indirections. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unk8nk$24nm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379951 |
On 09/01/2024 19:20, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote:
>>
>>>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find
>>>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason.
>>>
>>> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned,
>>> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant.
>>
>> So you see this in code:
>>
>> (*F)(x);
>>
>> and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I
>> thought you wanted that transparency?
>
> The use of (*pf)(args, ...) is unnecessary and in my experience, rare.
>
> It's a style used to emphasize that this is an indirect call.
>
> I probably first saw that ages ago in some XWindow sources or examples.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen that used on a function, as in
>
> (*strcmp)(str, "foo")
>
> which would be a kind of misuse, like a deliberately misleading comment.
>
> (Was that explicit dereference ever required in some versions of C or C
> compilers?)
>
> (*pf)(args, ...) style for indirections does have something
> to recommend it. If it is consistently and appropriately used, it
> clearly indicates the function indirections.
>
This is the funny thing about C (well one of many funny things):
* It has types which are pointers to Arrays, Structs and Functions
* It has formal syntax to dereference all of those
* But, that syntax is never used!
This is what I mean:
Type Formal Syntax Idiomatic Use
A Pointer to Array (*A)[i] A[i]
P Pointer to Struct (*P).m P->m
F Pointer to Function (*F)(x) F(x)
You only ever see syntax in the last column, hardly ever that formal style.
Which is probably just as well, as it's pretty ugly, and harder to type.
With arrays, people don't even bother with actual array pointers.
Structs have that funny -> operator, and Functions have those special rules.
At least, with P->m, you know that P must be a pointer to a struct, but
you can't tell with those others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <877ckip5wt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #379952 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
> On 09/01/2024 19:20, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find
>>>>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned,
>>>> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>> So you see this in code:
>>>
>>> (*F)(x);
>>>
>>> and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I
>>> thought you wanted that transparency?
>> The use of (*pf)(args, ...) is unnecessary and in my experience,
>> rare.
>> It's a style used to emphasize that this is an indirect call.
>> I probably first saw that ages ago in some XWindow sources or
>> examples.
>> I don't think I've ever seen that used on a function, as in
>> (*strcmp)(str, "foo")
>> which would be a kind of misuse, like a deliberately misleading
>> comment.
>> (Was that explicit dereference ever required in some versions of C
>> or C
>> compilers?)
>> (*pf)(args, ...) style for indirections does have something
>> to recommend it. If it is consistently and appropriately used, it
>> clearly indicates the function indirections.
>>
>
> This is the funny thing about C (well one of many funny things):
>
> * It has types which are pointers to Arrays, Structs and Functions
>
> * It has formal syntax to dereference all of those
>
> * But, that syntax is never used!
>
> This is what I mean:
>
> Type Formal Syntax Idiomatic Use
>
> A Pointer to Array (*A)[i] A[i]
>
> P Pointer to Struct (*P).m P->m
>
> F Pointer to Function (*F)(x) F(x)
In all three cases, neither is more formal or idiomatic than the other.
The -> operator is syntactic sugar (and yes, we could imagine a
different syntax in which it wouild't be necessary). BTW, it applies to
both structs and unions. (The standard doesn't even define -> in terms
of . and *, though it could have.)
The [], ->, and () operators all require a pointer expression on the
LHS (or as one of the operands in the case of []). The unary * operand
requires an operand of pointer type.
For [], the pointer operand is very commonly the name of an array
object, which decays to a pointer to the array's initial element.
For (), the pointer operand is very commonly the name of a function,
which decays to a pointer to the function.
That's how the language is defined. Do not assume that I am expressing
an opinion about whether it's good or bad. I probably wouldn't have
designed it that way, but I'm no Dennis Ritchie. What I'm suggesting is
that, even if you don't like it, it's helpful to understand the language
on its own terms.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240109132813.119@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379952 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > This is the funny thing about C (well one of many funny things): > > * It has types which are pointers to Arrays, Structs and Functions > > * It has formal syntax to dereference all of those > > * But, that syntax is never used! > > This is what I mean: > > Type Formal Syntax Idiomatic Use > > A Pointer to Array (*A)[i] A[i] > > P Pointer to Struct (*P).m P->m > > F Pointer to Function (*F)(x) F(x) > > > You only ever see syntax in the last column, hardly ever that formal style. The (*P).m can occur in macro-generated code. E.g. you could have a: #define task_self (*task_get_self()) so then you can access task_self.priority or whatever. The syntax is necessary for completeness, even if the sugar is almost always used in open coding. > Which is probably just as well, as it's pretty ugly, and harder to type. Syntactic sugars or shortcuts that are almost always used are found in other languages. Lisp programmers rarely type (quote x) instead of 'x. It's important that the underlying syntax is pinned down, though. > With arrays, people don't even bother with actual array pointers. Array pointers are cumbersome and error prone due to the leaky abstraction. Under most pointer abstractions, if T is typedef-ed as a pointer to something and we have a T P, we know that *P is that something. Not so with arrays; *P designates an array which sneakily decays to the first element. > Structs have that funny -> operator, and Functions have those special rules. > > At least, with P->m, you know that P must be a pointer to a struct, but > you can't tell with those others. Or, well union. If you see a P->n, you don't know whether it's the same as P->m or distinct because P could be a pointer to a union. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnuprfvs.83i.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #379952 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
> This is the funny thing about C (well one of many funny things):
>
> * It has types which are pointers to Arrays, Structs and Functions
>
> * It has formal syntax to dereference all of those
>
> * But, that syntax is never used!
>
> This is what I mean:
>
> Type Formal Syntax Idiomatic Use
>
> A Pointer to Array (*A)[i] A[i]
If A has type pointer-to-array, (*A)[i] and A[i] are not the same thing:
(*A)[i] is an array element
A[i] is an entire array
Here's a concrete example, where A is a pointer to an array [42] of double:
$ cat prog.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
double array[42];
double (*A)[42] = &array;
int const i = 0;
printf("sizeof (*A)[i] = %zu\n", sizeof (*A)[i]);
printf("sizeof A[i] = %zu\n", sizeof A[i]);
return 0;
}
$ cc -pedantic -Wall -Wextra -o prog prog.c
$ ./prog
sizeof (*A)[i] = 8
sizeof A[i] = 336
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 16:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <unkeji$25jrr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379951 |
On 1/9/24 14:20, Kaz Kylheku wrote: ... > The use of (*pf)(args, ...) is unnecessary and in my experience, rare. > > It's a style used to emphasize that this is an indirect call. > > I probably first saw that ages ago in some XWindow sources or examples. > > I don't think I've ever seen that used on a function, as in > > (*strcmp)(str, "foo") > > which would be a kind of misuse, like a deliberately misleading comment. > > (Was that explicit dereference ever required in some versions of C or C > compilers?) Yes. In K&R C, a function call started with a primary expression, and "The primary expression must be of type "function returning ...". (7.1, P186), so function pointers that had not been explicitly dereferenced didn't qualify. There was no implicit conversion from expressions of function type into a pointer to a function. Therefore, you could use func() or (*funcptr)(), but not funcptr(). In C89 there were two connected changes: "Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator /25/ or the unary& operator, a function designator with type ``function returning type'' is converted to an expression that has type ``pointer to function returning type .''", )3.2.2.1) "The expression that denotes the called function/29/ shall have type pointer to function ..." (3.3.2.2). The net result was that func() still works, and (*funcptr)(), because in both cases the function designator getsimplicitly converted to a pointer, which is good for backwards compatibility, but funcptr() also works, because funcptr is already a pointer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 12:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87frz6p938.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #379948 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
> On 09/01/2024 14:56, David Brown wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 12:11, Bart wrote:
>
>>> Not at all. You are defending some crazy anomaly, that you find
>>> nowhere else, for some insubstantial reason.
>> I'm saying it doesn't matter. I have never heard it mentioned,
>> anywhere, except by you. It is completely irrelevant.
>
> So you see this in code:
>
> (*F)(x);
>
> and don't assume that F must be a pointer to function; why not? I
> thought you wanted that transparency?
In terms of the C abstract machine, if that code is valid (and isn't
playing stupid macro tricks), yes, F must be an expression that
evaluates to a result of a pointer-to-function type. That's equally
true whether F is the name of an object of pointer-to-function type or
the name of a function.
If F is a pointer object, the author was probably trying to make that
explicit. If F is a function name, the author was probaby writing
deliberation obfuscated code (something that's not particularly
difficult in any language I've seen).
The language defines an implicit conversion of an expression of function
type to pointer-to-function type, similar to the array-to-pointer
conversion. This conversion occurs in most but not all contexts,
basically whenever it's not the operand of unary "&". (sizeof and
_Alignof also inhibit the conversion, so that `sizeof func` is an error,
not an expression that yields the size of a function pointer).
The language requires a pointer-to-function expression as the prefix of
a function call.
A result of this is that (******func)() is a valid call. Note also that
(+ + + + + + + + + 42) is a valid expression, and I don't see anyone
saying compilers should go out of their way to forbid it.
It *could* have required a function designator as the prefix of a
function call and dropped the function-to-pointer conversion. Then
ordinary function calls would look the same as they do now, and indirect
function calls would have to be written as (*funcptr)().
Personally, I might have preferred that approach, though it's likely
there are ramifications I haven't thought of.
My personal reaction has been to spend a few minutes thinking that this
is slightly ugly and counterintuitive, followed by several decades just
quietly accepting and using it.
[...]
> Would you design a language like that today?
Probably not. C is quirky, and I personally dislike a lot of its
quirks. But they're mostly straightforward quirks once you understand
them.
> I could list dozens of howlers within the language.
I'm sure you could. So could most of us. Pleaser don't bother.
> I've long thought that C was an elaborate joke that escaped from the
> lab. Possibly it is, and no one has yet owned up to it.
>
> But people actually take it seriously and even defend all this stuff.
Any time someone says "This is how C is defined", you interpret it as
"This is how C is defined, and it's the best possible way it could have
been defined". Nobody actually says that. You're arguing against a
strawman.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240109093318.5@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379946 |
On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > Now C does something odd: if T happens to be a function type, it > immediately turns that result back into *T. That's one way to have distinct concepts of function type and pointer to that type, while preserving most the assembly language semantics of working with functions as addresses. In declarations, other than of a function parameter, a function type is distinct from a pointer to that function type. But in all the places where the rhetorical rubber meets the proverbial pavement, functions are manipulated as pointers, like in machine languages. Thus we have decay rules similar to the array ones: parameter of function type adjusted to pointer; expressions of function type converted to pointer. It poses fewer difficulties for functions, in comparison to arrays; it is hardly noticeable. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-09 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87bk9up8rm.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #379949 |
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
> On 2024-01-09, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
>> Now C does something odd: if T happens to be a function type, it
>> immediately turns that result back into *T.
>
> That's one way to have distinct concepts of function type and pointer to
> that type, while preserving most the assembly language semantics of
> working with functions as addresses.
On my x86_64 system with gcc, these lines of C:
func();
funcptr();
result in these call instructions:
call func
call *%rdx
I don't know what the corresponding machine code looks like, but for an
ordinary function call, any treatment of the function name as an address
appears to be implicit even in assembly language, at least in this
implementation.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web