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 13 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 34 Next page →
| From | Anthony Cuozzo <anthony@cuozzo.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-11 19:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mk%nN.111489$yEgf.50686@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #380050 |
> Why, what hairy stuff are you doing that requires a language as complex > as 'make' and a shell environment as capable as 'bash'? Not OP, so please forgive me for jumping in, but I've found over the years that source distributions-- especially multi-platform source distributions --often require quite a bit more attention on the build side. Supporting a non-trivial program on e.g. three different CPU architectures with just as many (or more!) compilers across many different versions of several operating systems can quickly become impossible with one dedicated script per variation. Binary distributions are a different story, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-11 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87o7drmmbz.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380050 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/01/2024 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-01-11, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> I worked with .BAT files in the MS-DOS era. I left that stuff behind
>> just as the DOS era was coming to an end, and I went off to university.
>> Over the years, I had only rare, minor interactions with batch files on
>> Windows.
>> it's a very poor scripting language,
>
> I used the word 'script' loosely.
>
> I make a distinction between command-languages, which generally have
> only a linear sequence of commands, no looping or conditional code;
> and proper scripting languages which are full languages.
>
> BAT files I consider command languages where you just write commands
> A, B, C ... one after the other.
BAT files can also have IF and FOR statements. The program that
processes them, cmd.exe, is similar in many ways to a Unix shell, but
with substantially different syntax. Both are also used to type
commands interactively.
Of course you can write BAT files with no control flow. You can do the
same thing with Unix shell scripts.
I presume the distinction you're making is useful for you, but it's not
inherent in the tools.
[...]
--
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 | 2024-01-12 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unrfgs$3fo6l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380050 |
On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: > On 11/01/2024 22:02, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-11, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> I worked with .BAT files in the MS-DOS era. I left that stuff behind >> just as the DOS era was coming to an end, and I went off to university. >> Over the years, I had only rare, minor interactions with batch files on >> Windows. >> >> it's a very poor scripting language, > > I used the word 'script' loosely. > > I make a distinction between command-languages, which generally have > only a linear sequence of commands, no looping or conditional code; and > proper scripting languages which are full languages. > People can mean different things by "script" and "scripting language", so it is good that you are making this clear. > BAT files I consider command languages where you just write commands A, > B, C ... one after the other. > > For building programs, I've never needed anything more sophisticated. > This is the batch file for building my C compiler from source and > replacing the current production compiler: > > mm -opt cc.m > copy cc.exe \m\mcc.exe > copy headers\windows.h \m > > This involves working with 62 source and support files. The assembler > that mcc depends on is managed separately. The BAT file to update that > is this, which involves 15 modules: > > mm -opt aa.m > copy aa.exe \m\aa.exe > > You can see that there are very, very few demands in these 'scripts'. If > I need real scripting, I have a perfectly good one of my own. > > Why, what hairy stuff are you doing that requires a language as complex > as 'make' and a shell environment as capable as 'bash'? It sounds more > like, you just use the capability because it's there. And then complain > when Windows doesn't have that. > People use good tools when good tools are available - they don't go out of their way to use something inferior. Why is that a surprise? If you want to cut an orange, do you go out to the garage and find a rusty old knife that is nonetheless useable for cutting a bit of fruit - or do you use the shiny new titanium kitchen knife that is right in front of you? I used "make" on DOS and Windows for about 15 years before I started using Linux as a development system (rather than just for servers and for fun). Every Windows system I have ever owned personally or used at work has had "make" - because "make" has been the standard for quality development tools since early DOS days. The version I used first on Windows came with Turbo Pascal - Microsoft's tools came with their own slight variation of make called "nmake". If your build uses only a couple of commands, make doesn't add much compared to a script - but it doesn't cost much either. And you have the convenience that a lot of editors have shortcut keys for doing a "build", so something like ctrl-B will run "make" in the current directory without needing to set up any specific tool shortcuts. That's convenient. And unlike a language/compiler specific build system like you have within your "mm" or "mcc" tools (if I am not mistaken), "make" will work for anything you can run by commands. My makefiles might not just build executables from C files, but also build documentation (doxygen, LaTeX, pandoc, graphviz, etc.), run tests, run "clean", build release zip files, download to a target board via a debugger, and all sorts of other bits and pieces according to the needs of the project. One makefile beats a dozen scripts. > >> that Microsoft replaced with the >> PowerShell. Each time I had to interact with it over the past 30 >> years, I was reminded of how bad it is. It's like a freshman student's >> weekend project > > That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are as > bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you realise > they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them to display > a prompt? Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9ndoN.70175$m4d.49245@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #380060 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: >> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are as >> bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you realise >> they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them to display >> a prompt? > >Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit? Clearly, Bart is trolling. And clearly, he doesn't understand the basic unix philosophy of combining commands in pipeline, where "displaying a prompt" would be silly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unrpb0$3h6oo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380063 |
On 12/01/2024 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote:
>
>>> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are as
>>> bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you realise
>>> they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them to display
>>> a prompt?
>>
>> Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit?
>
> Clearly, Bart is trolling.
>
> And clearly, he doesn't understand the basic unix philosophy
> of combining commands in pipeline, where "displaying a prompt"
> would be silly.
Yeah. Because it would be impossible too have two versions of a program
(say 'as' that I used in my recent post), one for piping, one for
interactive.
One could even just be an alias of the other to avoid two copies. The
program could detect what name it was invoked under, and operate in a
different mode or with a different option.
As demonstrated here under Windows: 'mm' is a compiler with an option to
immediately run the program just compiled, without generating an EXE:
c:\mx>mm -run hello
Compiling hello.m to memory
Hello World! 16:20:21
However, if I make a copy called 'ms.exe' (I don't know how to do
aliases on Windows):
c:\mx>copy mm.exe ms.exe
1 file(s) copied.
Then it will automatically invoke that option, and also make it less
verbose to give the illusion it's directly running from source, which it is:
c:\mx>ms hello
Hello World! 16:21:52
Here is a more impressive example:
c:\cx>\mx\ms cc hello
Compiling hello.c to hello.exe
Here, it's first building my C compiler from source, then using that to
compile hello.c. (It adds 0.1 seconds to compile-time; it's still faster
than compiling it with gcc!)
Anyway, 'as' could be a lot better; just saying...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <yteoN.152138$PuZ9.29406@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #380065 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/01/2024 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: >> >>>> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are as >>>> bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you realise >>>> they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them to display >>>> a prompt? >>> >>> Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit? >> >> Clearly, Bart is trolling. >> >> And clearly, he doesn't understand the basic unix philosophy >> of combining commands in pipeline, where "displaying a prompt" >> would be silly. > >Yeah. Because it would be impossible too have two versions of a program >(say 'as' that I used in my recent post), one for piping, one for >interactive. Not impossible. Just unnecessary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240112121158.123@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380063 |
On 2024-01-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: > >>> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are as >>> bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you realise >>> they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them to display >>> a prompt? >> >>Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit? > > Clearly, Bart is trolling. > > And clearly, he doesn't understand the basic unix philosophy > of combining commands in pipeline, where "displaying a prompt" > would be silly. C:\Users\kazk>findstr d ... "hangs" ... Even Microsoft somehow got the memo that at least text filters shouldn't spew chatter. I can't think of any Unix programs other than "ed" that take commands on standard input, but don't print a prompt by default. -- 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.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unrocu$3h2ah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380060 |
On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote:
>> Why, what hairy stuff are you doing that requires a language as
>> complex as 'make' and a shell environment as capable as 'bash'? It
>> sounds more like, you just use the capability because it's there. And
>> then complain when Windows doesn't have that.
>>
>
> People use good tools when good tools are available - they don't go out
> of their way to use something inferior. Why is that a surprise? If you
> want to cut an orange, do you go out to the garage and find a rusty old
> knife that is nonetheless useable for cutting a bit of fruit - or do you
> use the shiny new titanium kitchen knife that is right in front of you?
>
> I used "make" on DOS and Windows for about 15 years before I started
> using Linux as a development system (rather than just for servers and
> for fun). Every Windows system I have ever owned personally or used at
> work has had "make" - because "make" has been the standard for quality
> development tools since early DOS days. The version I used first on
> Windows came with Turbo Pascal - Microsoft's tools came with their own
> slight variation of make called "nmake".
>
> If your build uses only a couple of commands, make doesn't add much
> compared to a script - but it doesn't cost much either. And you have
> the convenience that a lot of editors have shortcut keys for doing a
> "build", so something like ctrl-B will run "make" in the current
> directory without needing to set up any specific tool shortcuts. That's
> convenient.
>
> And unlike a language/compiler specific build system like you have
> within your "mm" or "mcc" tools (if I am not mistaken), "make" will work
> for anything you can run by commands. My makefiles might not just build
> executables from C files,
If you isolate that part of it, then it's what I either build-in to the
language + compiler (for M), or list in a simple text file (for C).
In either case I will have a project file using a similar list for my
basic IDE that I use for everyday development. But this part is not
needed when somebody else needs to build my project.
For a C project consisting of three files (one of Chris's), my IDE looks
like this:
https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/ff.png
It probably looked about the same in 1984. The project file for that is
this:
run cipher c.c output -e
module cipher.c
module sha2.c
module hmac.c
file sha2.h
file hmac.h
The 'run' lines show what happens when I type 'R' in the IDE.
This project is small enough that it can be built by a third party with
a one-line instruction. Otherwise it would need an @ file of a few lines
listing the .c files.
Because this project is tidily structured with paired .c/.h files, my
older BCC compiler could figure out how to build it from just the lead
module:
c:\c>bcc -auto cipher
1 Compiling cipher.c to cipher.asm (Pass 1)
* 2 Compiling hmac.c to hmac.asm (Pass 2)
* 3 Compiling sha2.c to sha2.asm (Pass 2)
Assembling to cipher.exe
> but also build documentation (doxygen, LaTeX,
> pandoc, graphviz, etc.), run tests, run "clean", build release zip
> files, download to a target board via a debugger, and all sorts of other
> bits and pieces according to the needs of the project. One makefile
> beats a dozen scripts.
It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then!
At least with bash, what you type equates to what you might type
interactively. I doubt there is a an interactive, REPL-style make (or
maybe there is; I wouldn't be suprised).
>> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are
>> as bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you
>> realise they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them
>> to display a prompt?
>
> Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit?
I mainly remember the times when they do hang.
But take the related trio gcc, as and ld.
gcc and ld behave as expected with no input (with gcc it's a 'fatal
error'; with ld it's a more restrained 'no input files').
But with 'as', it just sits there. I wonder what it's waiting for; for
me to type in ASM code live from the terminal? (If 'as' is designed for
piped-in input, tdm/gcc doesn't appear to use that feature as I remember
it generating discrete, temporary .s files.)
My equivalent says this:
c:\c>aa
AA2.0 Assembler/Linker 10-Jan-2024
Usage:
aa filename[.asm] # Assemble filename.asm to
filename.exe
aa -help # Show other options
If you're curious about what 'as' expects and speculatively try 'as
--help', it displays 167 dense lines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 17:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unrpn1$3h8jl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380064 |
On 12/01/2024 17:12, bart wrote: > On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: > >>> Why, what hairy stuff are you doing that requires a language as >>> complex as 'make' and a shell environment as capable as 'bash'? It >>> sounds more like, you just use the capability because it's there. And >>> then complain when Windows doesn't have that. >>> >> >> People use good tools when good tools are available - they don't go >> out of their way to use something inferior. Why is that a surprise? >> If you want to cut an orange, do you go out to the garage and find a >> rusty old knife that is nonetheless useable for cutting a bit of fruit >> - or do you use the shiny new titanium kitchen knife that is right in >> front of you? >> >> I used "make" on DOS and Windows for about 15 years before I started >> using Linux as a development system (rather than just for servers and >> for fun). Every Windows system I have ever owned personally or used >> at work has had "make" - because "make" has been the standard for >> quality development tools since early DOS days. The version I used >> first on Windows came with Turbo Pascal - Microsoft's tools came with >> their own slight variation of make called "nmake". >> >> If your build uses only a couple of commands, make doesn't add much >> compared to a script - but it doesn't cost much either. And you have >> the convenience that a lot of editors have shortcut keys for doing a >> "build", so something like ctrl-B will run "make" in the current >> directory without needing to set up any specific tool shortcuts. >> That's convenient. >> >> And unlike a language/compiler specific build system like you have >> within your "mm" or "mcc" tools (if I am not mistaken), "make" will >> work for anything you can run by commands. My makefiles might not >> just build executables from C files, > > If you isolate that part of it, then it's what I either build-in to the > language + compiler (for M), or list in a simple text file (for C). > > In either case I will have a project file using a similar list for my > basic IDE that I use for everyday development. But this part is not > needed when somebody else needs to build my project. > > For a C project consisting of three files (one of Chris's), my IDE looks > like this: > > https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/ff.png > > It probably looked about the same in 1984. The project file for that is > this: > > run cipher c.c output -e > > module cipher.c > module sha2.c > module hmac.c > file sha2.h > file hmac.h > > The 'run' lines show what happens when I type 'R' in the IDE. > I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that your 40 year old DOS IDE is equivalent to modern IDE's ? Are you trying to say you can use your own tools for your own language, and rely on a simple script for C compilation, and can't handle anything else in a build process? > >> but also build documentation (doxygen, LaTeX, pandoc, graphviz, etc.), >> run tests, run "clean", build release zip files, download to a target >> board via a debugger, and all sorts of other bits and pieces according >> to the needs of the project. One makefile beats a dozen scripts. > > It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! > I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is just a script with a complicated syntax. > At least with bash, what you type equates to what you might type > interactively. I doubt there is a an interactive, REPL-style make (or > maybe there is; I wouldn't be suprised). > > >>> That's exactly how I view gcc's UI. Most Linux-derived utilities are >>> as bad: you invoke them, and they just apparently hang. Then you >>> realise they're waiting for input. Would it kill somebody to get them >>> to display a prompt? >> >> Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a /tiny/ bit? > > I mainly remember the times when they do hang. > > But take the related trio gcc, as and ld. > > gcc and ld behave as expected with no input (with gcc it's a 'fatal > error'; with ld it's a more restrained 'no input files'). > > But with 'as', it just sits there. I wonder what it's waiting for; for > me to type in ASM code live from the terminal? (If 'as' is designed for > piped-in input, tdm/gcc doesn't appear to use that feature as I remember > it generating discrete, temporary .s files.) Yes, "as" can work with piped input. Yes, on real OS's this is a common way to use it. Windows has, surprising no one, only a half-arsed and inefficient pipe implementation, so it is more common to use temporary files for this sort of thing. (I am not familiar with TDM's builds and packaging of gcc and friends, but with mingw-64 builds it is certainly possible to use pipes. You simply pass the flag "-pipe" to gcc.) > > My equivalent says this: > > c:\c>aa > AA2.0 Assembler/Linker 10-Jan-2024 > Usage: > aa filename[.asm] # Assemble filename.asm to > filename.exe > aa -help # Show other options > > If you're curious about what 'as' expects and speculatively try 'as > --help', it displays 167 dense lines. > Are you trying to convince people that your assembler is better than gas because yours has fewer features? Bizarre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unrro8$3hj71$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380066 |
On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: > On 12/01/2024 17:12, bart wrote: > I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you > suggesting that your 40 year old DOS IDE is equivalent to modern IDE's ? No. Only that the way I normally work hasn't changed a great deal. > Are you trying to say you can use your own tools for your own > language, and rely on a simple script for C compilation, and can't > handle anything else in a build process? I'm separating the fundamental build-process for a program from what is needed for interactive development and testing. Makefiles you see supplied with open source projects don't generally make that distinction. But I can see you're struggling with the concept of simplicity. >>> download to a >>> target board via a debugger, (Hey, I used to do that! Not a makefile in sight either; how is that possible? I used to do that with no special tools, no external software and no external languages. I had to write assemblers for any new devices I has to use.) >>> and all sorts of other bits and pieces >>> according to the needs of the project. One makefile beats a dozen >>> scripts. >> >> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >> > > I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still > have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is just > a script with a complicated syntax. So, what the hell is it then? What makes it so special compared with any other scripting language? All I can see is that it can create dependency graphs between files - which have to be determined from info that you provide in the file, it's not that clever - and can use that to avoid recompilation etc of a file unless its dependencies have changed. That is something I've never needed done automatically in my own work (I do it manually as I will know my projects intimately when I'm working with them). For production builds, it doesn't matter if everything is compiled. For end-user builds who just want a working binary, they have to build everything from source anyway. >> If you're curious about what 'as' expects and speculatively try 'as >> --help', it displays 167 dense lines. >> > > Are you trying to convince people that your assembler is better than gas > because yours has fewer features? Bizarre. It's simpler and gives a simple summary of how it works. Clearly your idea of 'better' is to be vastly more complicated. I guess an assembler which will only work for the processor you happen to be working with is no good at all. It has to also support dozens that are not relevant to the task in hand. BTW my assembler can directly produce EXE and DLL files; in that regard it IS better than 'as' and probably most others which like to off-load that critical bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 19:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unruru$3i29g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380068 |
On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote: > On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance. >> >> I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still >> have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is >> just a script with a complicated syntax. > > So, what the hell is it then? What makes it so special compared with any > other scripting language? Meanwhile you seem to have read a bit about it, as you show below. It's a _simple_ tool - not complex, as you've previously posted - where you can define dependencies of entities, and define commands that create the targets if entities that are required by the target had changed. Its basic syntax and also its logic is simple, and it does the specific task very well, and it is not bound to a specific language, or to languages generally, but also to any generation processes. > > All I can see is that it can create dependency graphs between files - > which have to be determined from info that you provide in the file, it's > not that clever - and can use that to avoid recompilation etc of a file > unless its dependencies have changed. Or rather, unless the entities (that are dependent on) have changed. And this is a crucial feature; for professional non-trivial projects. > > That is something I've never needed done automatically in my own work (I > do it manually as I will know my projects intimately when I'm working > with them). Yes, we know. You've repeatedly shown that you are actually doing small one-man-shows in projects that I can only call toy-projects. Professional projects have a different situation in many respects. (I don't go into detail here, since you're anyway only interested in your local comfort zone.) > > For production builds, it doesn't matter if everything is compiled. For a production build we extract a committed release into an own file system branch and build all, first for the tests, then to pack the source (optionally), and then the complete runtime environment. But we're doing professional software products. And the production build comes _at the end_. Before that we need efficient mechanisms to create consistent systems and configurations, and to avoid unnecessary compiles. And the 'make' process does exactly that. > [...] > > Clearly your idea of 'better' is to be vastly more complicated. The Makefile mechanism is extremely important and yet very simple. Clearly your imputations are based on ignorance. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uns9c6$3jis4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380073 |
On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! > > Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead > of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance. Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that? How about YOU learn how to build software without those tools? > It's a _simple_ tool - not complex, as you've previously posted - > where you can define dependencies of entities, and define commands > that create the targets if entities that are required by the target > had changed. Its basic syntax and also its logic is simple, > And this is a crucial feature; for professional non-trivial projects. Come on then, tell me how big your projects are. Are they bigger than Scott Lurndal's 10Mloc example? (Which seems to be mostly Python source code.) >> >> That is something I've never needed done automatically in my own work (I >> do it manually as I will know my projects intimately when I'm working >> with them). > > Yes, we know. You've repeatedly shown that you are actually doing > small one-man-shows in projects that I can only call toy-projects. This is incredibly patronising. What is wrong with one-man projects? What is wrong with writing non-professional software? Is that the same as non-commercial? Where is the line between a toy project and a non-toy project? Is it related to how lines or how many modules an application might have, or the size of the final binaries? Is it to do with the number of end-users? Is lua.exe a toy application? (Since it only has 33 modules and is a 300KB program.) > Professional projects have a different situation in many respects. > (I don't go into detail here, since you're anyway only interested > in your local comfort zone.) No, don't. I assume you've got some hugely complicated app with a million moving parts. It's so big that nobody knows what's what. Your compilers are so slow that you HAVE to use dependencies to avoid spending 90% of the day twiddling your thumbs. That's a million miles from the stuff I do, yet you still insist /I/ should be using all the same complicated tools you do. Actually I don't care what the hell you do. I care when it impacts me when I sometimes have to build something, WHICH IS RARELY MORE THAN DOZENS OF MODULES OR 100/200K LINES OF CODE, so obviousy trivial compared with your stuff, and yet I have to go through some torturous process to get it done. Let me tell about my own tools: * My main compiler (not for C), is a whole-program compiler (so interdepency graphs are pointless). * It can whizz through sourcecode at 500,000 lines per second at least * It can generate executable code at 5MB per second at least This means that for a project that is about 0.5Mloc, or produces a 5MB executable, recompiling everything might take ONE SECOND. (And that is with the cheapest PC in the shop and with a non-optimised compiler.) Presumably YOUR apps are massively bigger and more complex than that. But most stuff /I/ want write, or build of other people's, will be much smaller. This is why I consider make and friends pointless at this end of the scale. >> >> For production builds, it doesn't matter if everything is compiled. > > For a production build we extract a committed release into an own > file system branch and build all, first for the tests, then to pack > the source (optionally), and then the complete runtime environment. > But we're doing professional software products. And the production > build comes _at the end_. > Before that we need efficient mechanisms to create consistent systems > and configurations, and to avoid unnecessary compiles. And the 'make' > process does exactly that. Well, /I/ don't need that. I used to write commercial software in the 90s. I really never had some problems. Half the line count (then about 150Kloc in all) was in scripting code. That could be modified and tested /in the middle of a running application/. I could send (by email) a script module to a customer and they could run that without restarting their session. Others could use my scripting language to create their own OEM add-on products, without needing to rebuild the main application. Yes, there was an install and configuration process, done via a GUI. So, now tell me where the hell 'makefiles' would fit into that scenario. Just accept that some of this stuff is out of /your/ comfort zone. I write all my own tools, including a private C compiler. (I use it to help with translating bindings from C headers, or to build DLLs of libraries that exist as C source code, when the build info doesn't make it in impossible.) If I needed a tool like 'make', I would have created one. Instead I developed fast, whole-program compilers and scripting languages. > Clearly your imputations are based on ignorance. Yeah. I could say the same thing. But usually I try and stay polite and argue only against ideas and not people. Have a good day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <878r4umfb2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380086 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then!
>> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead
>> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance.
>
> Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that?
There are many tools I don't need. I don't spend my days complaining
that they don't work the way I think they should.
> How about YOU learn how to build software without those tools?
Why?
Or, more to the point: No.
--
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 | 2024-01-12 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240112134536.695@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380086 |
On 2024-01-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >> >> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead >> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance. > > Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that? You do need make, if you're on a Unix-like system and you want to make "hello" out of "hello.c" with a command that consists of only two words. This requirement was articulated by you. -- 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.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unskit$3l154$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380089 |
On 12/01/2024 21:51, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >>> >>> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead >>> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance. >> >> Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that? > > You do need make, if you're on a Unix-like system and you want to make > "hello" out of "hello.c" with a command that consists of only two words. To clarify: * You have a hypothetical situation where you want to turn hello.c into hello.exe (I'm going insist on that extension in this example). * The tool you have generates a.out given the two-word command 'cc hello.c' * Getting hello.exe requires the three-word command 'cc hello.c -ohello.exe' The solution apparently is not to make a three-line change to 'cc' to fix it, but to create a new language and implemention just to provide a wrapper around the unchanged behaviour of 'cc'. That sounds barmy. The astronauts who had to apply the conversion kit to the HST had no choice. Clearly they would rather have got the mirror in the first place. But your attitude seems to be that such a sticking-plaster fix is superior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 16:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87zfxakqjd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380104 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/01/2024 21:51, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2024-01-12, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote:
>>>>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then!
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead
>>>> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance.
>>>
>>> Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that?
>> You do need make, if you're on a Unix-like system and you want to
>> make
>> "hello" out of "hello.c" with a command that consists of only two words.
>
> To clarify:
>
> * You have a hypothetical situation where you want to turn hello.c
> into hello.exe (I'm going insist on that extension in this example).
OK.
> * The tool you have generates a.out given the two-word command 'cc hello.c'
OK.
> * Getting hello.exe requires the three-word command 'cc hello.c -ohello.exe'
I'd write that as "cc hello.c -o hello.exe". (Unix option parsing
typically allows the argument to an option to be either part of the same
word or a separate word.)
And if I have a single "hello.c" source file and I want to generate an
executable from it, I rarely use "make". I just type something like
"gcc hello.c -o hello". (I might have "hello.cpp" in the same
directory, and I don't know which rule takes precedence. That's not
going to be an issue in a larger project.)
> The solution apparently is not to make a three-line change to 'cc' to
> fix it, but to create a new language and implemention just to provide
> a wrapper around the unchanged behaviour of 'cc'.
No, "make" was not written as a solution to the "problem" of
cc's command-line syntax. Most of us don't think it's a problem.
(Yes, I know you do; no need to say so again.)
It was written as a tool for building large projects by expressing
dependencies, so that if you change one file you can recompile
those files, and only those files, that need to be recompiled.
That is perhaps not quite as important as it once was.
It happens that once you have a working Makefile, it works equally
well either to rebuild a project after a single change, or to build
an entire project from scratch. Someone could probably create
a simpler version of "make" that doesn't look at dependencies,
and that always rebuilds everything. Such a tool would be worse
than "make" for building projects during development, and not
significantly better than "make" for building projects from scratch.
And that's ignoring the "-j" option, which allows "make" to execute
multiple steps in parallel. That works only because "make" knows
about dependencies, and it can result in a full build from scratch
finishing much more quickly. A simple script that just compiles
each file isn't likely to do that. You can typically specify a
maximum number of parallel jobs equal to the number of CPUs on your
build system, e.g., `make -j $(nproc)`.
> That sounds barmy.
To you, I'm sure it does. It isn't.
> The astronauts who had to apply the conversion kit to the HST had no
> choice. Clearly they would rather have got the mirror in the first
> place.
>
> But your attitude seems to be that such a sticking-plaster fix is superior.
I'd like to bring something to your attention. You often make
statements about the attitudes of the people you're having these
discussions with. Those statements are almost always wrong. I'd say
more if I thought you'd be interested.
--
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 | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unso1g$3lb69$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380108 |
On 13/01/2024 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > It happens that once you have a working Makefile, it works equally > well either to rebuild a project after a single change, or to build > an entire project from scratch. Someone could probably create > a simpler version of "make" that doesn't look at dependencies, > and that always rebuilds everything. Such a tool would be worse > than "make" for building projects during development, and not > significantly better than "make" for building projects from scratch. > > And that's ignoring the "-j" option, which allows "make" to execute > multiple steps in parallel. That works only because "make" knows > about dependencies, and it can result in a full build from scratch > finishing much more quickly. A simple script that just compiles > each file isn't likely to do that. You can typically specify a > maximum number of parallel jobs equal to the number of CPUs on your > build system, e.g., `make -j $(nproc)`. That's a reasonable thing to do. But how does make do it? Can't a compiler apply the same approach if N files have been submitted? After all C allows independent compilation of modules. (Something my language doesn't have; there the granularity is an EXE file, not a module.) > >> That sounds barmy. > > To you, I'm sure it does. It isn't. > >> The astronauts who had to apply the conversion kit to the HST had no >> choice. Clearly they would rather have got the mirror in the first >> place. >> >> But your attitude seems to be that such a sticking-plaster fix is superior. > > I'd like to bring something to your attention. You often make > statements about the attitudes of the people you're having these > discussions with. Those statements are almost always wrong. I'd say > more if I thought you'd be interested. > My post was in response to "needing 'make' if you wanted a two-word command to build 'hello'". I didn't seriously think that was the reason make was invented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 17:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87v87yko35.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380110 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/01/2024 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> It happens that once you have a working Makefile, it works equally
>> well either to rebuild a project after a single change, or to build
>> an entire project from scratch. Someone could probably create
>> a simpler version of "make" that doesn't look at dependencies,
>> and that always rebuilds everything. Such a tool would be worse
>> than "make" for building projects during development, and not
>> significantly better than "make" for building projects from scratch.
>> And that's ignoring the "-j" option, which allows "make" to execute
>> multiple steps in parallel. That works only because "make" knows
>> about dependencies, and it can result in a full build from scratch
>> finishing much more quickly. A simple script that just compiles
>> each file isn't likely to do that. You can typically specify a
>> maximum number of parallel jobs equal to the number of CPUs on your
>> build system, e.g., `make -j $(nproc)`.
>
> That's a reasonable thing to do. But how does make do it? Can't a
> compiler apply the same approach if N files have been submitted?
I've never looked into it.
I suppose it could be done, but IMHO compilers are complex enough
without adding logic to perform parallel compilations, especially since
"make" already solves that problem.
> After all C allows independent compilation of modules. (Something my
> language doesn't have; there the granularity is an EXE file, not a
> module.)
>
>>
>>> That sounds barmy.
>> To you, I'm sure it does. It isn't.
>>
>>> The astronauts who had to apply the conversion kit to the HST had no
>>> choice. Clearly they would rather have got the mirror in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>> But your attitude seems to be that such a sticking-plaster fix is superior.
>> I'd like to bring something to your attention. You often make
>> statements about the attitudes of the people you're having these
>> discussions with. Those statements are almost always wrong. I'd say
>> more if I thought you'd be interested.
>
> My post was in response to "needing 'make' if you wanted a two-word
> command to build 'hello'".
Kaz wrote:
] You do need make, if you're on a Unix-like system and you want to make
] "hello" out of "hello.c" with a command that consists of only two words.
I don't believe he was suggesting that needing a two-word command is a
reasonable requirement.
> I didn't seriously think that was the reason make was invented.
It can be difficult to tell when you're serious.
--
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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <EGxoN.298030$83n7.184008@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #380111 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 13/01/2024 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> It happens that once you have a working Makefile, it works equally >>> well either to rebuild a project after a single change, or to build >>> an entire project from scratch. Someone could probably create >>> a simpler version of "make" that doesn't look at dependencies, >>> and that always rebuilds everything. Such a tool would be worse >>> than "make" for building projects during development, and not >>> significantly better than "make" for building projects from scratch. >>> And that's ignoring the "-j" option, which allows "make" to execute >>> multiple steps in parallel. That works only because "make" knows >>> about dependencies, and it can result in a full build from scratch >>> finishing much more quickly. A simple script that just compiles >>> each file isn't likely to do that. You can typically specify a >>> maximum number of parallel jobs equal to the number of CPUs on your >>> build system, e.g., `make -j $(nproc)`. >> >> That's a reasonable thing to do. But how does make do it? Can't a >> compiler apply the same approach if N files have been submitted? > >I've never looked into it. > >I suppose it could be done, but IMHO compilers are complex enough >without adding logic to perform parallel compilations, especially since >"make" already solves that problem. The most common example of submitting N files for compilation in a single compile command would be java. Even then, it wasn't sufficient, so ant was developed. https://ant.apache.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 16:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OuyoN.298037$83n7.96919@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #380128 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 13/01/2024 00:47, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> It happens that once you have a working Makefile, it works equally >>>> well either to rebuild a project after a single change, or to build >>>> an entire project from scratch. Someone could probably create >>>> a simpler version of "make" that doesn't look at dependencies, >>>> and that always rebuilds everything. Such a tool would be worse >>>> than "make" for building projects during development, and not >>>> significantly better than "make" for building projects from scratch. >>>> And that's ignoring the "-j" option, which allows "make" to execute >>>> multiple steps in parallel. That works only because "make" knows >>>> about dependencies, and it can result in a full build from scratch >>>> finishing much more quickly. A simple script that just compiles >>>> each file isn't likely to do that. You can typically specify a >>>> maximum number of parallel jobs equal to the number of CPUs on your >>>> build system, e.g., `make -j $(nproc)`. >>> >>> That's a reasonable thing to do. But how does make do it? Can't a >>> compiler apply the same approach if N files have been submitted? >> >>I've never looked into it. And it's rather irrelevent, as make handles projects with multiple languages as well as projects which generate compilable collateral during the build process. The project that I posted about earlier has python elements, C elements, C++ elements and some custom shell scripts to generate header files used by the C and C++ elements. All of this is sequenced (dependency graph) by the make utility and to the extent possible, uses all the hardware resources available with parallel job submission (subject to dependency constraints). And the jobs need not be submitted locally, they can be easily farmed out to hundreds of hosts in a grid environment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web