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 6 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 34 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 02:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un54lv$3ddec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379823 |
On 04/01/2024 01:57, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >> On 03/01/2024 19:16, David Brown wrote: >>> On 03/01/2024 18:14, Bart wrote: >> >>>> How do you know whether I'm exaggerating or not? There have surely >>>> been many millions of people who've programmed in C over the years. >>>> >>> >>> And how many of them define or use such a macro? Some, certainly, but >>> not all. I can't say I have ever had one in my code as far as I >>> remember. Occasionally I find it convenient to calculate the size of an >>> existing array, but I'll just write it manually as an expression (like >>> Scott seems to do). >> >> So writing the same long identifier twice? > > Yes. Good editors mean you don't need to type it > twice (ywllp). > >> And hoping there's no typo in one? > > If there's a typo, the compiler will note it and I'll > fix it. But, see above. > >> > Because sizeof(A)/sizeof(B[0]) would be legal code when both A and >> B are arrays. > > Good thing I don't use single letter identifiers. > What are you, 5 years old? A and B are placeholders for arbitrary identifiers of any length. How about if I change my remark to: "Because sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on) would be legal code when both pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on and k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on are arrays." You get it now? But you're just winding me up aren't you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <RJAlN.141573$c3Ea.132913@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #379824 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >On 04/01/2024 01:57, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >>> On 03/01/2024 19:16, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 03/01/2024 18:14, Bart wrote: >>> >>>>> How do you know whether I'm exaggerating or not? There have surely >>>>> been many millions of people who've programmed in C over the years. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And how many of them define or use such a macro? Some, certainly, but >>>> not all. I can't say I have ever had one in my code as far as I >>>> remember. Occasionally I find it convenient to calculate the size of an >>>> existing array, but I'll just write it manually as an expression (like >>>> Scott seems to do). >>> >>> So writing the same long identifier twice? >> >> Yes. Good editors mean you don't need to type it >> twice (ywllp). >> >>> And hoping there's no typo in one? >> >> If there's a typo, the compiler will note it and I'll >> fix it. But, see above. >> >>> >> Because sizeof(A)/sizeof(B[0]) would be legal code when both A and >>> B are arrays. >> >> Good thing I don't use single letter identifiers. >> > >What are you, 5 years old? > >A and B are placeholders for arbitrary identifiers of any length. > >How about if I change my remark to: > >"Because >sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on) >would be legal code when both pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on and >k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on are arrays." It's pretty obvious to even the meanest programmer that code is incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 18:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un6toq$3ogqm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379832 |
On 04/01/2024 16:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>> On 04/01/2024 01:57, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Good thing I don't use single letter identifiers.
>>>
>>
>> What are you, 5 years old?
>>
>> A and B are placeholders for arbitrary identifiers of any length.
>>
>> How about if I change my remark to:
>>
>> "Because
>> sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)
>> would be legal code when both pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on and
>> k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on are arrays."
>
> It's pretty obvious to even the meanest programmer that code is incorrect.
Is it? How do you know? The code is valid:
--------
int pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on;
int k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on;
int main(void) {
sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on);
}
--------
This compiles fine. It is valid C. But what does it mean? Given more
suitable types for those expressions, is it an incorrect attempt to get
an array length, or something else entirely?
Using this definition of the first variable:
int pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on[13];
Then it does in fact evaluate its length, although partly by coincidence
as both base-types are 'int'.
(Now you're going to point out that it doesn't use that value; yes, we
know.)
Here's the same experiment with my language:
int pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on
int k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on
proc main=
pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on.len
end
This is more transparent: it's definitely evaluating the length of that
variable, but it fails because it is not an array. If I add that '[13]'
(here it goes at the left), then it works.
Now look at the basketcase that is C's attempt. C could EASILY have had
an equivalent op that works like 'size'of'; it chose not to.
Why is everyone trying to make out that C's approach is superior when it
clearly isn't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <un72f1$3p72u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379836 |
On 04.01.2024 19:35, Bart wrote: > > Now look at the basketcase that is C's attempt. C could EASILY have had > an equivalent op that works like 'size'of'; it chose not to. You're asking for an, say, 'nof_elements(A)', where there's currently only a 'sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0])' existing? - Is that the whole resume of this overly bulky subthread? Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un73om$3pd33$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379840 |
On 04/01/2024 19:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 04.01.2024 19:35, Bart wrote: >> >> Now look at the basketcase that is C's attempt. C could EASILY have had >> an equivalent op that works like 'size'of'; it chose not to. > > You're asking for an, say, 'nof_elements(A)', where there's currently > only a 'sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0])' existing? - Is that the whole resume > of this overly bulky subthread? Yes exactly. If you're arguing that it is such a trivial matter that it is hardly worth discussing, I can equally say that if it is that trivial, why isn't it just built-in? How hard can it be? The subthread was actually about the macro system, and this example was one I gave where macros make it possible for every man and his dog to create their own sloppy, incompatible workaround. Every other app seems to provide their own version; I gave three where so far we have ArraySize, SDL_arraysize, and ARRAY_SIZE. You yourself have suggested 'nof_elements'. You see the problem? I'm not actually too bothered about that (I know C is never going to have anything that is that sensible), I'm arguing against attitudes like yours that it doesn't matter. My original point may have been this: suppose C's macro system didn't exist. Would that have given enough impetus to whoever was or were responsible for the language, to actually do it properly? Since my conjecture was that C's macro scheme stopped it evolving normally.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <875y08u1il.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #379841 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
> On 04/01/2024 19:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 04.01.2024 19:35, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>> Now look at the basketcase that is C's attempt. C could EASILY have had
>>> an equivalent op that works like 'size'of'; it chose not to.
>> You're asking for an, say, 'nof_elements(A)', where there's
>> currently
>> only a 'sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0])' existing? - Is that the whole resume
>> of this overly bulky subthread?
>
> Yes exactly.
>
> If you're arguing that it is such a trivial matter that it is hardly
> worth discussing, I can equally say that if it is that trivial, why
> isn't it just built-in? How hard can it be?
Implementing a new "lengthof" macro in an existing implementation?
Nearly trivial. (I picked the name for vague consistency with sizeof
and alignof.)
Implementing it in such a way that it can't easily be misused on an
argument of pointer type? A little harder, but I think solutions exist,
and it only has to be written once.
Implementing it as an operator, similar to sizeof and alignof?
Feasible, probably not a whole lot of work for each compiler. All
compilers implement sizeof, so all the information needed to implement
lengthof is already available -- and applying it to something that's a
pointer rather than array could be a constraint violation.
Standardizing it? Getting agreement on a name that (a) makes its
meaning clear and (b) doesn't conflict with existing code? (Or getting
agreement that breaking *some* existing code is acceptable?) Ensuring
that the specification covers all corner cases? Documenting it with
accuracy and precision comparable to other existing wording in the
standard? Reviewing that documentation and replying to complaints, some
valid, some not? Getting it into the next edition of the C standard and
getting all conforming implementations to provide it? Possible, but not
at all easy.
Demonstrating that there's enough demand to justify all this effort?
Explaining why the existing situation (individual programs either
defining their own macros or writing the expression inline and going to
some effort to ensure that such code, like all the other code, is
correct) is not good enough? Demonstrating that the current situation
actually causes serious problems? Not easy at all.
Any C implementation can provide such a macro as an extension. An
implementation could, for example, define a macro lengthof() in
<stddef.h>. I haven't checked, but I don't believe it does so, most
likely because few if any users have asked for it.
Nobody is claiming that C is a perfect language. If it had provided,
starting in C89, a built-in lengthof similar to sizeof, that would have
been fine and dandy. But the lack of such an operator has not been a
big enough problem to justify the *substantial* effort a universal
solution would require. There are a whole lot of nice-to-have features
that aren't in the language simply because they weren't part of the
language to begin with.
Sure, two software projects could use different names, and there could
be problems when merging code from them. Such problems can always occur
anyway, for a number of reasons. And such problems are solvable.
Note that most array objects are dealt with via pointers. Once you pass
an array to a function, the function sees it as a pointer, and *cannot*
determine how many elements it has. The feature you want could only be
used for an array object that's defined at block scope (local to a
function) or at file scope (outside any function).
[snip]
--
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 | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 10:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <un8gkp$3ne6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379841 |
On 04.01.2024 21:17, Bart wrote: > On 04/01/2024 19:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 04.01.2024 19:35, Bart wrote: >>> >>> Now look at the basketcase that is C's attempt. C could EASILY have had >>> an equivalent op that works like 'size'of'; it chose not to. >> >> You're asking for an, say, 'nof_elements(A)', where there's currently >> only a 'sizeof(A)/sizeof(A[0])' existing? - Is that the whole resume >> of this overly bulky subthread? > > Yes exactly. Fine. > > If you're arguing that it is such a trivial matter that it is hardly > worth discussing, I can equally say that if it is that trivial, why > isn't it just built-in? How hard can it be? Why so paranoid defensive? :-) I wasn't arguing (not yet), I was asking two questions; one was what appears to be the essence of thousands lines of posts with a lot repetitions. (And the other was on the posting meta level, with the implicit hope to come to an end since everything seems to have been said on that theme.) Also the two questions you have added here (seemingly as virtual counter-argument) had already been addressed. > > The subthread was actually about the macro system, and this example was > one I gave where macros make it possible for every man and his dog to > create their own sloppy, incompatible workaround. I'm sure I already read arguments on that many times in this thread. My view is that all the programming areas create (also sloppy) workarounds for features that are not part of the "language of choice" (here: "C"). Specifically when discussing C there's IMO countless examples of what's missing, and what's wrongly designed, and whatnot. - Thus I am merely astonished that you fastened on that bit so vigorously, and also with so much text and repetitions. > > Every other app seems to provide their own version; I gave three where > so far we have ArraySize, SDL_arraysize, and ARRAY_SIZE. > > You yourself have suggested 'nof_elements'. You see the problem? Not the least. The sizeof/sizeof I consider as an idiomatic approach to achieve for a special detail of the language a practical solution. And the naming of entities in programs through identifiers will always be individual, while in practice typically with semantically sensible naming. I really don't care if programmers call her entities X or Y. Only if a language designer (or committee) decides to add a feature as a standard part of the language it becomes important. There's (IMO) so much wrong with arrays in C that the discussed special case (which is also not generally applicable as pointed out repeatedly) is of little interest (for me; YMMV). > > I'm not actually too bothered about that (I know C is never going to > have anything that is that sensible), I'm arguing against attitudes like > yours that it doesn't matter. Yet - despite dozens of posts with thousands of lines - I haven't seen any convincing argument that it would matter. > > My original point may have been this: suppose C's macro system didn't > exist. Would that have given enough impetus to whoever was or were > responsible for the language, to actually do it properly? That's a noteworthy statement since formulated as thought experiment. But the hypothetical precondition shows that it's really not worth a discussion in the first place. Mind, I started with K&R C in the 1980's, at a time where much more sophisticated languages had already been present; the formally much more appealing Algol(68), the concepts-outstanding Simula(67), even Pascal (that you recently also mentioned) was very appealing due to its simplicity, efficiency, expressiveness and still clearness, just to name a few. What I was missing in C - one major issue was the OO capabilities that I had got used with Simula - I later found in C++, alongside with the efficiency of C inherited, but also with all the deficiencies of C; but for some features you've got alternatives (e.g. sophisticated STL containers replacing these (IMO annoying) low-level "C arrays" (with all its inhomogeneities), and providing yet much more that I appreciated). > > Since my conjecture was that C's macro scheme stopped it evolving normally. Above we identified a "resume" of the previous posts. Another one shall finalize this post; no one is forced to use C. - Myself I'm using it occasionally where appropriate. But if I think something is in my way - and may it be only as unimportant as 'A.length' - I'll just switch to another language (with richer feature set, or with a more coherent design). It certainly wouldn't occur to me to ask for features that I already find in many contemporary language I can choose from. I'm confident your mileage may vary, and we can agree to disagree. :-) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240105103637.607@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379853 |
On 2024-01-05, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: > Why so paranoid defensive? :-) For consistency with lengthy past history. -- 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 | 2024-01-05 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un9l2e$8qt5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379853 |
On 05/01/2024 09:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 04.01.2024 21:17, Bart wrote: > Specifically when discussing C there's IMO countless examples of what's > missing, and what's wrongly designed, and whatnot. - Thus I am merely > astonished that you fastened on that bit so vigorously, and also with > so much text and repetitions. Within one post or multiple? If I'm repeating myself it is either because others do, or I'm being attacked on multiple fronts. > There's (IMO) so much wrong with arrays in C that the discussed special > case (which is also not generally applicable as pointed out repeatedly) > is of little interest (for me; YMMV). There is a huge amount wrong with C at this level of language, which is about par with my own. Many will just move on from C to modern alternatives, but they are generally bigger, more complex, and cumbersome. I like systems coding at this level. So as a long time user and developer of my alternate language, I can give talk about 100-200 different aspects that I have made better. Most are microfeatures, but some are big ones. > Mind, I started with K&R C in the 1980's, at a time where much more > sophisticated languages had already been present; the formally much > more appealing Algol(68), the concepts-outstanding Simula(67), even > Pascal Mine has a syntax based largely on Algol and Pascal, notably Algol68. Algol68 has LWB a and UPB a, I turned those into a.lwb and a.upb, and added a.len. But my language was far simpler semantically. > Above we identified a "resume" of the previous posts. Another one > shall finalize this post; no one is forced to use C. Neither was I, until 1992, then I needed to start interacting with libraries defined via a C API. I was supposed to switch to using C (and get a proper job using that), but I couldn't do it. I realised my 'temporary' in-house language that I'd hacked together in my spare time was actually better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%cFlN.140487$xHn7.115393@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #379836 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>On 04/01/2024 16:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>> On 04/01/2024 01:57, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>>>> Good thing I don't use single letter identifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What are you, 5 years old?
>>>
>>> A and B are placeholders for arbitrary identifiers of any length.
>>>
>>> How about if I change my remark to:
>>>
>>> "Because
>>> sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)
>>> would be legal code when both pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on and
>>> k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on are arrays."
>>
>> It's pretty obvious to even the meanest programmer that code is incorrect.
>
>Is it? How do you know? The code is valid:
>
>--------
>int pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on;
>int k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on;
>
>int main(void) {
>sizeof(pentium_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on)/sizeof(k6_msr_passthrough_with_knobs_on);
>}
>--------
>
>This compiles fine.
So what? Any programmer will see that they don't
match immediately. It is obviously wrong.
Give it up already. Propose a modification to the
C language to the standards committee. Bitching about
it is just noise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnupeb0t.qme.jj@iridium.wf32df> |
| In reply to | #379843 |
On 2024-01-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >> >>This compiles fine. > > So what? Any programmer will see that they don't > match immediately. It is obviously wrong. > > Give it up already. Propose a modification to the > C language to the standards committee. Bitching about > it is just noise. Oh boy and isn't there a lot of it - yawn!!!!! I admire the preserverance
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un7cjh$3qi9d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379844 |
On 04/01/2024 22:07, Jim Jackson wrote:
> On 2024-01-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes:
>>>
>>> This compiles fine.
>>
>> So what? Any programmer will see that they don't
>> match immediately. It is obviously wrong.
>>
>> Give it up already. Propose a modification to the
>> C language to the standards committee. Bitching about
>> it is just noise.
>
> Oh boy and isn't there a lot of it - yawn!!!!!
>
> I admire the preserverance
For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just write:
A.len
instead of:
sizeof(A)/size(A[0])
So it's no skin off my nose if you prefer to do that or are happy
reinventing various workarounds.
I had wondered if things would have been any different without macros to
create those workarounds.
It looks like, probably not.
So, /I/ admire your stoicism in putting up with a badly designed
language of which this is one tiny aspect.
(Tell me, if /you/ were to design a new language, would you still
require that sizeof/sizeof business? No? Thought not!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 23:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240104151249.990@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #379846 |
On 2024-01-04, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote: > On 04/01/2024 22:07, Jim Jackson wrote: >> On 2024-01-04, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> writes: >>>> >>>> This compiles fine. >>> >>> So what? Any programmer will see that they don't >>> match immediately. It is obviously wrong. >>> >>> Give it up already. Propose a modification to the >>> C language to the standards committee. Bitching about >>> it is just noise. >> >> Oh boy and isn't there a lot of it - yawn!!!!! >> >> I admire the preserverance > > For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just write: > > A.len > > instead of: > > sizeof(A)/size(A[0]) But I suspect that language can pass the array to a function, and that function also do A.len, right? Even when we have a macro or language extension that calculates sizeof(A)/sizeof(*A), it is only usable for arrays that were not passed by pointer. -- 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 | 2024-01-04 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un7g3i$3r08q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379847 |
On 04/01/2024 23:14, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-01-04, Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2024 22:07, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>> I admire the preserverance
>>
>> For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just write:
>>
>> A.len
>>
>> instead of:
>>
>> sizeof(A)/size(A[0])
>
> But I suspect that language can pass the array to a function, and
> that function also do A.len, right?
That depends. If the length is part of the type like in these 3
examples, then yes:
proc F1([5]int A) = println A.len end # by 'value'
proc F2(ref[5]int P) = println P.len end # by pointer**
proc F3([5]int &A) = println A.len end # by reference
(** It auto-derefs.) But it can only be called with an array of that
exact size:
[5]int A
[7]int B
F1(A)
F2(&A)
F3(A)
I can use A, but not B.
However most arrays passed to functions are unbounded (use [] not [N]),
since it is most useful to allow arrays of arbitrary length (this was
the problem with the first Pascals) then you will need a separate length
parameter.
Attempting A.len when A has type []int will give 0.
Alternately, slices can be used which carry their length:
proc F4(slice[]int S) = println S.len end
Now I can call it with both A and B, and without needing a separate length:
F4(A)
F4(B)
Or with a slice of an array:
F4(B[3..5]) # displays 3, but the bounds are 1..3
> Even when we have a macro or language extension that calculates
> sizeof(A)/sizeof(*A), it is only usable for arrays that were not passed
> by pointer.
The test lengthof(A) implementation which I did in 20 minutes the other
day, doesn't report an error when A is not an array; it just ignores it
and does sizeof(). So it will take bit longer to make it robust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-04 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un7eoj$3qpmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379846 |
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:48:17 +0000, Bart wrote:
> For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just
> write:
>
> A.len
Better still:
len(A)
which is just a generic wrapper around
A.__len__()
so it will work with your custom object types as well, all they have to do
is define a method with that name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.cm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 01:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un7ndt$3rr75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379849 |
On 04/01/2024 23:25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:48:17 +0000, Bart wrote: > >> For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just >> write: >> >> A.len > > Better still: > > len(A) > > which is just a generic wrapper around > > A.__len__() > > so it will work with your custom object types as well, all they have to do > is define a method with that name. If a language has a built-in like A.len or len(A) or A'len and so on, then it can choose to allow overloading for that operator. The syntax chosen doesn't matter. It doesn't need to take a heavy-handed approach like C++ or Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 04:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <un820p$l6e$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379851 |
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 01:53:00 +0000, Bart wrote: > If a language has a built-in like A.len or len(A) or A'len and so on, > then it can choose to allow overloading for that operator. The syntax > chosen doesn't matter. The operation still has to be defined for the relevant type, in order for the construct to work. > It doesn't need to take a heavy-handed approach like C++ or Python. Given that the entire Python language definition is a small fraction of that of, say, Java, which does not allow operator overloading on user- defined types, I would hardly describe it as “heavy-handed”.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 15:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <un92c7$6325$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379851 |
On 05/01/2024 02:53, Bart wrote:
> On 04/01/2024 23:25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 22:48:17 +0000, Bart wrote:
>>
>>> For 40 years 99% of my coding has been in a language where you just
>>> write:
>>>
>>> A.len
>>
>> Better still:
>>
>> len(A)
>>
>> which is just a generic wrapper around
>>
>> A.__len__()
>>
>> so it will work with your custom object types as well, all they have
>> to do
>> is define a method with that name.
>
> If a language has a built-in like A.len or len(A) or A'len and so on,
> then it can choose to allow overloading for that operator. The syntax
> chosen doesn't matter.
>
> It doesn't need to take a heavy-handed approach like C++ or Python.
>
One option for a useful array length operator/function/macro is a simple
and limited feature that works for arrays of known size and gives a hard
(compile-time) error when the size is not known. The one you have in
your own language covers most of that, except for the insanity of
evaluating to 0 when given a pointer/reference to an "unbounded" array.
The "ARRAY_SIZE" macro in Linux is almost perfect - the only
disadvantage is that it relies on compiler extensions:
#define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) +
__must_be_array(arr))
#define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a),
typeof(b)))
#define __must_be_array(a) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__same_type((a), &(a)[0]))
#define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
The other option is a general mechanism for "length" as an
operator/function/macro that can be applied to a wide range of types -
including user-made types, assuming the language supports user-defined
types. Whether that is done by function overloads, custom methods,
etc., is a design choice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <871qavu5z9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #379854 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> One option for a useful array length operator/function/macro is a
> simple and limited feature that works for arrays of known size and
> gives a hard (compile-time) error when the size is not known. The one
> you have in your own language covers most of that, except for the
> insanity of evaluating to 0 when given a pointer/reference to an
> "unbounded" array. The "ARRAY_SIZE" macro in Linux is almost perfect -
> the only disadvantage is that it relies on compiler extensions:
>
> #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) +
> __must_be_array(arr))
>
> #define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a),
> typeof(b)))
>
> #define __must_be_array(a) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__same_type((a), &(a)[0]))
>
> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
[...]
When you wrote "in Linux", I wondered if you were being imprecise, but
in fact that code is in the Linux kernel.
That means the macros aren't directly available to normal C code, but
you can always copy their definitions (*if* you're using a compiler
that supports the __builtin_types_compatible_p extension).
--
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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-05 17:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <un9b2f$7a5s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #379856 |
On 05/01/2024 16:58, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> [...]
>> One option for a useful array length operator/function/macro is a
>> simple and limited feature that works for arrays of known size and
>> gives a hard (compile-time) error when the size is not known. The one
>> you have in your own language covers most of that, except for the
>> insanity of evaluating to 0 when given a pointer/reference to an
>> "unbounded" array. The "ARRAY_SIZE" macro in Linux is almost perfect -
>> the only disadvantage is that it relies on compiler extensions:
>>
>> #define ARRAY_SIZE(arr) (sizeof(arr) / sizeof((arr)[0]) +
>> __must_be_array(arr))
>>
>> #define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a),
>> typeof(b)))
>>
>> #define __must_be_array(a) BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(__same_type((a), &(a)[0]))
>>
>> #define BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO(e) (sizeof(struct { int:-!!(e); }))
> [...]
>
> When you wrote "in Linux", I wondered if you were being imprecise, but
> in fact that code is in the Linux kernel.
>
I am perhaps being /too/ precise - "Linux" is technically the kernel,
rather than the rest of the system (including user C code). But yes, it
is in the headers for use when compiling the kernel, rather than for
user code compiled for Linux systems.
And yes, you can copy them (or variations of them) to your own code.
> That means the macros aren't directly available to normal C code, but
> you can always copy their definitions (*if* you're using a compiler
> that supports the __builtin_types_compatible_p extension).
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web