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 15 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 34 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 13:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo3a3s$u3sc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380171 |
On 15/01/2024 12:39, bart wrote: > On 15/01/2024 08:51, Gabriel Rolland wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> If I recall the ongoing thread, there was two "indefendable" statements: > > OK, whatever the actual spelling of 'indefendable' might be... > >> a) make is useless and cryptic > > My 'C and Make' thread showed a clear example of it being used > gratuitously. I contend that that happens a lot. > >> b) gcc's outputing of binaries to a.out by default is useless and >> cryptic >> >> Since *a* has been explained already. I'll just give my two cents on >> *b*. >> When I'm learning to program, I use to have a lot of source files in the >> same repository. I don't want't the binaries, I just want to play with >> the source and sometimes, compile them and see if they compile correctly >> and the behavior is correct. Outputting the binary to a.out by default >> instead of "hello.o" is sort of useful here. For two reasons : >> 1. I don't have the overhaul of remembering how did I call that source >> file in that particular moment when I wrote it. I know I have to call >> ./a.out > > Hang on: are you generating 'a.out' the object file, or 'a.out' the > executable file? (Because ./a.out will execute the file.) > > Here is where Unix/Linux's treatment of file extensions does my head in. > 'a.out' is used there for both kinds of file. To find out what it > actually is, you have to look inside the file, which defeats the purpose > of having a file extension at all. *nix does not make heavy use of file extensions (as you know). You can use the "file" command to see what kind of file you have (as you also know, as you've been told before). Sometimes file extensions are helpful, such as for distinguishing different source code languages. If you ask gcc to compile but not link a file, such as "gcc -c hello.c", the default output will be an object file named "hello.o". If you ask gcc to compile and link, such as "gcc hello.c", the default output will be an executable called "a.out". (It is in "elf" format - long ago, the default executable format was called "a.out".) > >> and that's it. >> 2. It doesn't crowds my directory with lots of useless binaries. > > The problems of always having the same a.exe/a.out output (here it is > the executable file - see, I have to keep disambiguating!) are multiple: > > * If you working with several small one-file programs c, d, and e say, > you want them compiled as c.exe, d.exe and e.exe. Having them all be > a.exe is not going to work; which of c, d, e does it correspond to? > Suppose you want to run c, d, e one after the other? If that's a problem, write "gcc -o d.exe d.c" to get an executable named "d.exe" (even on Linux). Or write "make d", to compile and link "d.c" into an executable called "d". > > * You might be testing (as I do), multiple compilers on the same c.c. > The first produces c.exe; you test it. Compile with the second to make a > new c.exe; you test that. Compile with gcc to make a new ... a.exe. Now > you have to remember it's a different executable. > > (The number of times I've forgotten that and run c.exe instead, and > thought gcc's code wasn't quite as fast as I'd expected...). > I think I see a common factor running through all these problems you are having...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 17:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h6jev9c6.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #380171 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 15/01/2024 08:51, Gabriel Rolland wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> If I recall the ongoing thread, there was two "indefendable" statements:
>
> OK, whatever the actual spelling of 'indefendable' might be...
>
Oh no, that was not about the spelling of the word. It was about
semantics. I think they can be quite defended, and everybody here has
proved it.
>> a) make is useless and cryptic
>
> My 'C and Make' thread showed a clear example of it being used
> gratuitously. I contend that that happens a lot.
>
>> b) gcc's outputing of binaries to a.out by default is useless and
>> cryptic
>> Since *a* has been explained already. I'll just give my two cents on
>> *b*.
>> When I'm learning to program, I use to have a lot of source files in the
>> same repository. I don't want't the binaries, I just want to play with
>> the source and sometimes, compile them and see if they compile correctly
>> and the behavior is correct. Outputting the binary to a.out by default
>> instead of "hello.o" is sort of useful here. For two reasons :
>> 1. I don't have the overhaul of remembering how did I call that source
>> file in that particular moment when I wrote it. I know I have to call
>> ./a.out
>
> Hang on: are you generating 'a.out' the object file, or 'a.out' the
> executable file? (Because ./a.out will execute the file.)
This has been answered better than I could by David Brown.
> Here is where Unix/Linux's treatment of file extensions does my head
> in. 'a.out' is used there for both kinds of file. To find out what it
> actually is, you have to look inside the file, which defeats the
> purpose of having a file extension at all.
The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent,
true. So I don't bother with file extensions much. But I have yet to go
on comp.os.windows to explain how confusing file extensions are.
>> and that's it.
>> 2. It doesn't crowds my directory with lots of useless binaries.
>
> The problems of always having the same a.exe/a.out output (here it is
> the executable file - see, I have to keep disambiguating!) are
> multiple:
>
> * If you working with several small one-file programs c, d, and e say,
> you want them compiled as c.exe, d.exe and e.exe. Having them all be
> a.exe is not going to work; which of c, d, e does it correspond to?
> Suppose you want to run c, d, e one after the other?
>
> * You might be testing (as I do), multiple compilers on the same
> c.c. The first produces c.exe; you test it. Compile with the second
> to make a new c.exe; you test that. Compile with gcc to make a new
> ... a.exe. Now you have to remember it's a different executable.
>
That is not about the use case my two cents were about. Why bring up
cross compilation to the table ?
I think it is another problem and it is the reason why your answer is
longer than you intended.
> (The number of times I've forgotten that and run c.exe instead, and
> thought gcc's code wasn't quite as fast as I'd expected...).
>
> * You compile a big program one.c which takes a long time. You then
> compiled another program two.c, which you now realise has
> overwritten the a.exe that represented one.c.
>
> The answer isn't to use '-o c.exe' either. In both cases gcc is out of
> kilter with the other compilers; it will eiher produce the wrong EXE,
> or you need extra options that the others don't.
>
>
> OK, I replied at more length than I intended. I really feel these
> small matters in such tools are important. Others gloss over them:
>
> * "You never run gcc directly; use make!"
>
> * "Write a wrapper script or program around gcc"
>
> * "You spent more time complaining about it then you'd have spent just
> typing '-oprog.exe!"
>
> And so on. The trouble is if you post, on a forum, some C code with a
> brief note of how it should be built, you can't assume somebody has
> the same wrapper, and you don't want to also post a make script, but
> you have to add these stupid extra options each time.
>
> I could suggest for example that, if 'gcc prog.c' always generated
> 'prog', that you instead used:
>
> gcc prog.c -oa.out
>
> if you don't want the proliferation of binaries. But I guess you
> wouldn't want that extra hassle.
This is a supposition on your part. If gcc/cc was working as you said,
like outputting of hello.c hello.exe by default. In that case I would
maybe have considered something like aliasing gcc thus :
alias cc='gcc -o current.exe'
So I wouldn't have that extra hassle. But that would belong to my
'.profile' opinions and everybody can have his own '.profile' opinion
about how gcc should work. I respect that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <77epN.177807$c3Ea.63006@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #380191 |
Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> writes:
>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Here is where Unix/Linux's treatment of file extensions does my head
>> in. 'a.out' is used there for both kinds of file. To find out what it
>> actually is, you have to look inside the file, which defeats the
>> purpose of having a file extension at all.
>
>The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent,
That is an understatement. A unix filename is a sequence of bytes
with no semantics associated with them, other than by application
convention.
The largest security hole in Windows was its reliance on extension
to identify file type regardless of content.
> This is a supposition on your part. If gcc/cc was working as you said,
> like outputting of hello.c hello.exe by default. In that case I would
> maybe have considered something like aliasing gcc thus :
>
> alias cc='gcc -o current.exe'
or
function cc
{
gcc -o "$1".exe "$1".c
}
as was posted upthread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo3u9h$11i75$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380191 |
On 15/01/2024 16:40, Gabriel Rolland wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> This has been answered better than I could by David Brown.
I'm not reading DB's comments today.
> The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent,
> true. So I don't bother with file extensions much. But I have yet to go
> on comp.os.windows to explain how confusing file extensions are.
This is not a Linux newsgroup. It's a language group.
But I expect you do use file extensions. Otherwise any file in one of
your folders be absolutely anything: text, source in any language,
document, binary data, object file, executable ...
I'm imagine if 'abc' was a C source file, you'd have to put the object
file 'abc' in a separate folder, and the executable 'abc' in a third
one? Otherwise they will clash.
So extensions serve useful purposes for both machine, and human users.
Programs that deal with them will of course check that they are what
they say they are.
> This is a supposition on your part. If gcc/cc was working as you said,
> like outputting of hello.c hello.exe by default. In that case I would
> maybe have considered something like aliasing gcc thus :
>
> alias cc='gcc -o current.exe'
> So I wouldn't have that extra hassle.
> But that would belong to my
> '.profile' opinions and everybody can have his own '.profile' opinion
> about how gcc should work. I respect that.
Suppose you write an application as myprog.c. You distribute it for
people to build. The instructions could have been as simple as:
gcc myprog.c
and it will create myprog which can be invoked as ./myprog, or as
myprog.exe which on Windows is invoked as just myprog.
But because of this stupid quirk in gcc that could have been fixed in
three lines of code, millions of people have to add extra instructions:
gcc myprog.c -o myprog
You don't get this in other languages.
It is just Wrong.
Hardcoding the name of an output file is something a beginner might do,
or in the early stages of an an application (I do that myself).
But that program version is never going to see the light of day. So how
the hell did that idiotic behaviour of gcc (and the worse one of as)
ever escape into the wild? QoI was lacking.
Meanwhile everybody is defending it, and there are even people like you
saying that is an advantage!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <csfpN.200177$7sbb.184012@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #380197 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 15/01/2024 16:40, Gabriel Rolland wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> This has been answered better than I could by David Brown.
>
>I'm not reading DB's comments today.
Your loss.
>
>> The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent,
>> true. So I don't bother with file extensions much. But I have yet to go
>> on comp.os.windows to explain how confusing file extensions are.
>
>This is not a Linux newsgroup. It's a language group.
>
>But I expect you do use file extensions.
Sure, for convenience, not necessity. Some very useful tools,
such as make, have default rules for common file name suffixes,
but there's nothing that prevents one from supplying their own
rules.
>Otherwise any file in one of
>your folders be absolutely anything: text, source in any language,
>document, binary data, object file, executable ...
It's a directory, not a folder.
And yes, any file in a directory can be pretty much anything the
user wants it to be. c_code_main is a perfectly legal name for
a c source file while b235 is a perfectly legal name for the
executable file generated by a C compiler from the source file
c_code_main.
>
>I'm imagine if 'abc' was a C source file, you'd have to put the object
>file 'abc' in a separate folder, and the executable 'abc' in a third
>one? Otherwise they will clash.
$ cat /tmp/z
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(int argc, const char **argv, const char **envp, const char **auxv)
{
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
$ cat /tmp/z | cc -x c -o a -
$ ./a
Hello World
$
>Programs that deal with them will of course check that they are what
>they say they are.
And how, exactly, will they do that for a text file?
>But because of this stupid quirk in gcc that could have been fixed in
>three lines of code, millions of people have to add extra instructions:
>
> gcc myprog.c -o myprog
You keep beat a dead horse. Pointless and a waste of time.
>
>You don't get this in other languages.
That's demonstrably false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo4190$121on$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380199 |
On 15/01/2024 19:12, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 15/01/2024 16:40, Gabriel Rolland wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> This has been answered better than I could by David Brown.
>>
>> I'm not reading DB's comments today.
>
> Your loss.
>
>>
>>> The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent,
>>> true. So I don't bother with file extensions much. But I have yet to go
>>> on comp.os.windows to explain how confusing file extensions are.
>>
>> This is not a Linux newsgroup. It's a language group.
>>
>> But I expect you do use file extensions.
>
> Sure, for convenience, not necessity. Some very useful tools,
> such as make, have default rules for common file name suffixes,
> but there's nothing that prevents one from supplying their own
> rules.
>
>> Otherwise any file in one of
>> your folders be absolutely anything: text, source in any language,
>> document, binary data, object file, executable ...
>
> It's a directory, not a folder.
>
> And yes, any file in a directory can be pretty much anything the
> user wants it to be. c_code_main is a perfectly legal name for
> a c source file
True:
c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main
1 file(s) copied.
c:\c>mcc c_code_main.
Compiling c_code_main. to c_code_main.exe
Although some compilers appear to have a problem with it:
c:\c>gcc c_code_main.
C:\tdm\bin\ld.exe:c_code_main.: file format not recognized; treating
as linker script
C:\tdm\bin\ld.exe:c_code_main.:2: syntax error
collect2.exe: error: ld returned 1 exit status
They still need that scrap of info that was imparted by the extension,
either as .c or as -xc
> while b235 is a perfectly legal name for the
> executable file generated by a C compiler from the source file
> c_code_main.
It might well be. On Linux of course they tend not to have extensions,
for a very simple reason: it would get rapidly tedious to have to type,
many 1000s of times:
./b235.elf
or whatever extension is chosen.
>>
>> I'm imagine if 'abc' was a C source file, you'd have to put the object
>> file 'abc' in a separate folder, and the executable 'abc' in a third
>> one? Otherwise they will clash.
>
> $ cat /tmp/z
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int
> main(int argc, const char **argv, const char **envp, const char **auxv)
> {
> printf("Hello World\n");
>
> return 0;
> }
> $ cat /tmp/z | cc -x c -o a -
> $ ./a
> Hello World
> $
Not sure what you're demonstrating here. Except how you're evading the
issue by avoiding intermediate files altogether.
Brilliant. Not sure how it plays with makefiles though which seem to
deal extensively with .o files.
>
>> Programs that deal with them will of course check that they are what
>> they say they are.
>
> And how, exactly, will they do that for a text file?
How does Linux deal with that same problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GkgpN.74448$m4d.70292@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #380201 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 15/01/2024 19:12, Scott Lurndal wrote: > >> >>> Programs that deal with them will of course check that they are what >>> they say they are. >> >> And how, exactly, will they do that for a text file? > >How does Linux deal with that same problem? Linux doesn't. The gnu C compiler will produce errors if the input isn't valid C, I suppose you could call that checking that they are what they say they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 23:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240115152642.593@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380201 |
On 2024-01-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main > 1 file(s) copied. There goes that damned AT&T instruction syntax for file copying, same like in Unix. Doesn't it bother you that it isn't: copy destination source? -- 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 | 2024-01-16 00:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo4h6h$14are$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380218 |
On 15/01/2024 23:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main >> 1 file(s) copied. > > There goes that damned AT&T instruction syntax for file copying, same > like in Unix. > > Doesn't it bother you that it isn't: copy destination source? I haven't said anything about in which direction the data goes. This is something that tends to depend on device, so Motorola went left to right, and Zilog/Intel went right to left. So it did seem odd for this x86 assembler to do the opposite of Intel. However, doesn't it bother /you/ that AT&T also does the opposite of not only how assignment works in C, but in most languages? That would be more pertinent than somebody's choices of command-line syntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 18:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <uo4pbo$15bb0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380222 |
On 1/15/2024 4:04 PM, bart wrote: > On 15/01/2024 23:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main >>> 1 file(s) copied. >> >> There goes that damned AT&T instruction syntax for file copying, same >> like in Unix. >> >> Doesn't it bother you that it isn't: copy destination source? > > I haven't said anything about in which direction the data goes. > > This is something that tends to depend on device, so Motorola went left > to right, and Zilog/Intel went right to left. > > So it did seem odd for this x86 assembler to do the opposite of Intel. > > However, doesn't it bother /you/ that AT&T also does the opposite of not > only how assignment works in C, but in most languages? That would be > more pertinent than somebody's choices of command-line syntax. > Fwiw, just make both, I did AT&T syntax and Intel syntax files. Nice and neat (I think so) with the C ABI, CDECL. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/6zvMwefWIWw/m/5nIzi8MPAgAJ ___________ Fwiw, I found some of my older 686 code I posted about way back in 2006. The WayBack Machine is pretty nice! http://web.archive.org/web/20060214112345/http://appcore.home.comcast.net/appcore/src/cpu/i686/ac_i686_gcc_asm.html Here is a MASM version: http://web.archive.org/web/20060214112539/http://appcore.home.comcast.net/appcore/src/cpu/i686/ac_i686_masm_asm.html ___________ No big deal, I just had to do it. So, once it was done, it was done. If I needed another arch, I would code one up for it (per-arch asm file). SPARC, no problem. Just keep in mind to NEVER put a memory barrier instruction in a branch delay slot on SPARC. oh very bad...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 14:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo5vuu$1f4l9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380222 |
On 16/01/2024 01:04, bart wrote: > On 15/01/2024 23:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main >>> 1 file(s) copied. >> >> There goes that damned AT&T instruction syntax for file copying, same >> like in Unix. >> >> Doesn't it bother you that it isn't: copy destination source? > > I haven't said anything about in which direction the data goes. > > This is something that tends to depend on device, so Motorola went left > to right, and Zilog/Intel went right to left. > > So it did seem odd for this x86 assembler to do the opposite of Intel. > > However, doesn't it bother /you/ that AT&T also does the opposite of not > only how assignment works in C, but in most languages? That would be > more pertinent than somebody's choices of command-line syntax. > AFAIUI, AT&T syntax was first for the PDP11, which used left to right direction. It was later modified and adopted for x86 before Intel had actually made a good assembly syntax (AFAIK). I think it has become more common to use right-to-left ordering for assemblies, but there has never been a real consensus. In the early days, different groups made their own assemblers, and sometimes their own assembly language or mnemonics. Certainly they would use their own choice of directives and other syntax, keeping them the same as they had for other targets. And if you already make assemblers that have left-to-right syntax, then it makes sense to keep that for new targets - it means more re-use of your assembler source code, and more familiarity for users who deal with multiple targets. The majority of people working on assembly code for the x86 on *nix systems (at least early on) would have been familiar with the AT&T syntax for PDP11, m68k, or other processors - keeping the same style for x86 made their life easier. Given a completely free choice, I'd probably choose Intel format for x86 rather than AT&T. But since I don't write x86 assembly, and can read either format on godbolt, I don't mind much either way. And given a completely free choice to design a new assembly language for a processor (pre-existing or new), I think I'd go for a right-to-left assignment. As you say, it fits better with most programming languages (other than Forth, Cobol, and some programmable calculator languages). As for other things like the % before register names - well, you either have to have special markings for register names or you have to have special marking for external symbols (at least those from HLL's that don't carefully avoid clashes with register names). No choice is going to be perfect for everyone's tastes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WDxpN.207473$PuZ9.7920@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #380222 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 15/01/2024 23:28, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> c:\c>copy hello.c c_code_main >>> 1 file(s) copied. >> >> There goes that damned AT&T instruction syntax for file copying, same >> like in Unix. >> >> Doesn't it bother you that it isn't: copy destination source? > >I haven't said anything about in which direction the data goes. > >This is something that tends to depend on device, so Motorola went left >to right, and Zilog/Intel went right to left. > >So it did seem odd for this x86 assembler to do the opposite of Intel. > >However, doesn't it bother /you/ that AT&T also does the opposite of not It doesn't bother me at all. Every assembler I used was from->to from the PDP-11 through Burroughs mainframes. Only the intel assembler (and arm, which copied intel) reverses that. AT&T chose from->to to match the PDP-11 (and later VAX-11) assembler behavior. It made no sense to use the intel variety when they ported to intel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 21:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo43r7$12f4m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380197 |
On 15/01/2024 19:41, bart wrote: > On 15/01/2024 16:40, Gabriel Rolland wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> This has been answered better than I could by David Brown. > > I'm not reading DB's comments today. Maybe you will look later - or maybe others will find them interesting. I am clear in my opinions in my posts, but I have also written a great deal that is primarily to help you. If you don't pay attention to that, it's not going to help your reputation of being wilfully ignorant and disregarding help and advice. > >> The executable. Unix treatment of file extension is non existent, >> true. So I don't bother with file extensions much. But I have yet to go >> on comp.os.windows to explain how confusing file extensions are. > > This is not a Linux newsgroup. It's a language group. So why are you concerned here with Linux's use, or lack thereof, of file extensions? > > But I expect you do use file extensions. Otherwise any file in one of > your folders be absolutely anything: text, source in any language, > document, binary data, object file, executable ... > > I'm imagine if 'abc' was a C source file, you'd have to put the object > file 'abc' in a separate folder, and the executable 'abc' in a third > one? Otherwise they will clash. > > So extensions serve useful purposes for both machine, and human users. > Sure, file extensions can be very useful. They can also be deceiving, which is why it is a huge security hole in Windows (though I'd hesitate to agree with Scott that it is the /biggest/ hole in Windows) to treat them as so important. It tells me something when a file has .txt, or .c, or .md at the end. It also gives programs useful information if they have to deal with multiple file types that cannot be identified clearly. But it is not something a system should rely on for something important, and programs should allow file extensions to be overridden. Thus gcc will assume "file.c" is a C file, while "file.f" is a Fortran file. But you can override that if you want. And file extension is irrelevant to *nix OS's for identifying if a file should be executed or not. Everyone wins, no one loses - unlike the Windows user who double-clicks on a malware file called "Readme.txt.exe" and the OS has "helpfully" hidden the ".exe" bit. > Suppose you write an application as myprog.c. You distribute it for > people to build. The instructions could have been as simple as: > > gcc myprog.c > > and it will create myprog which can be invoked as ./myprog, or as > myprog.exe which on Windows is invoked as just myprog. > Yes, gcc could have been made that way. I expect people would have been fine with that. But it's not made that way, and most people seem fine with what gcc actually does. I doubt there are many people who think defaulting to a.out is a particular advantage these days (presumably it was a good idea historically), but I doubt that there are many who are bothered by it. > But because of this stupid quirk in gcc that could have been fixed in > three lines of code, millions of people have to add extra instructions: > > gcc myprog.c -o myprog > > You don't get this in other languages. gcc is not a language. But without having tried every other compiler (for C or other languages), I'd be loath to claim there are no other compilers that also have a default output file. I don't think you have either. I believe, however, that I can honestly say I don't know if any of the other C compilers (or linkers, as that's more accurate) I have used over the decades have a default output file, and what it might be. I've always specified the output filename I want. > > It is just Wrong. > > Hardcoding the name of an output file is something a beginner might do, > or in the early stages of an an application (I do that myself). > > But that program version is never going to see the light of day. So how > the hell did that idiotic behaviour of gcc (and the worse one of as) > ever escape into the wild? QoI was lacking. > Do you not think that someone else might have noticed if it were such an issue? Have you ever heard anyone else complain? gcc is something like four decades old, and *nix and C compilers are another decade older. > Meanwhile everybody is defending it, and there are even people like you > saying that is an advantage! > Maybe to some people it /is/ an advantage. Have you ever considered that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo672q$1g9n5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380203 |
On 15/01/2024 20:16, David Brown wrote: > On 15/01/2024 19:41, bart wrote: [gcc writing.out/a.ext output executables by default.] >> Meanwhile everybody is defending it, and there are even people like >> you saying that is an advantage! >> > > Maybe to some people it /is/ an advantage. Have you ever considered that? Sure. The same way that the fallthrough behaviour of C's switch statement is considered an advantage by some. Meanwhile, 99% of the time ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 16:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo68aq$1ge1j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380244 |
On 16/01/2024 16:24, bart wrote: > On 15/01/2024 20:16, David Brown wrote: >> On 15/01/2024 19:41, bart wrote: > > [gcc writing.out/a.ext output executables by default.] > >>> Meanwhile everybody is defending it, and there are even people like >>> you saying that is an advantage! >>> >> >> Maybe to some people it /is/ an advantage. Have you ever considered >> that? > > Sure. The same way that the fallthrough behaviour of C's switch > statement is considered an advantage by some. Meanwhile, 99% of the time A default a.out filename is of no advantage to /me/, but Gabriel says he/she finds it useful, and I've no reason to doubt him/her. Default fallthrough switch behaviour is different in that it is potentially counter-productive and dangerous. As someone who uses good tools, and knows how to use them, it is not an issue for my own code - but it can be a source of error in other people's code. I can imagine bugs in real, released code as a result of default fallthrough in switches. I cannot imagine problems caused by default output filenames - it is, at most, an extremely minor inconvenience for a few people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 06:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) |
| Message-ID | <uo7mvp$1s1cr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380246 |
On 16.01.2024 16:45, David Brown wrote: > > Default fallthrough switch behaviour is different in that it is > potentially counter-productive and dangerous. As someone who uses good > tools, and knows how to use them, it is not an issue for my own code - > but it can be a source of error in other people's code. It can also just be a useful code pattern, as in Duff's Device. > I can imagine bugs in real, released code as a result of default > fallthrough in switches. [...] Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 11:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) |
| Message-ID | <uo8b37$1v1eq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380310 |
On 17/01/2024 06:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 16.01.2024 16:45, David Brown wrote: >> >> Default fallthrough switch behaviour is different in that it is >> potentially counter-productive and dangerous. As someone who uses good >> tools, and knows how to use them, it is not an issue for my own code - >> but it can be a source of error in other people's code. > > It can also just be a useful code pattern, as in Duff's Device. > No. Fallthrough switch behaviour can be useful (and not in the monstrosity that is Duff's Device, but mostly when you have multiple switch cases that are handled by the same code). /Default/ fallthrough switch behaviour is not good. If you want fallthrough, label it with "[[fallthrough]]", or a comment or other technique recognised by your tools and by your fellow programmers. >> I can imagine bugs in real, released code as a result of default >> fallthrough in switches. [...] > > Janis >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 12:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) |
| Message-ID | <uo8d8e$1vj8l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380321 |
On 17.01.2024 11:44, David Brown wrote: > On 17/01/2024 06:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 16.01.2024 16:45, David Brown wrote: >>> >>> Default fallthrough switch behaviour is different in that it is >>> potentially counter-productive and dangerous. As someone who uses good >>> tools, and knows how to use them, it is not an issue for my own code - >>> but it can be a source of error in other people's code. >> >> It can also just be a useful code pattern, as in Duff's Device. >> > > No. > > Fallthrough switch behaviour can be useful (and not in the monstrosity > that is Duff's Device, but mostly when you have multiple switch cases > that are handled by the same code). I don't think that multiple case-labels are the interesting part; they are just a bulky syntactic way to collect items - compare that [syntactically] with case statements in other languages (e.g. in Pascal). In many (most? all?) C based language, OTOH, you have to identify every single value by a 'case' keyword, and you also _have_ to use an explicit 'break' to not "fall through". The fall through logic is interesting (sort of) if you want to "re-use" code from other case labels. - Not that this feature would make any program easier to maintain. (I would avoid that.) The use of "code patterns" (like the mentioned Duff's Device) is often an indication to support features that the language doesn't natively support; I see them often (for example) in Awk. It's not something I would strive for in cleanly written software. But it's usable as an idiomatic expression for a subset of (specific) tasks. YMMV. > > /Default/ fallthrough switch behaviour is not good. But this is the case with C-based languages; we have to accept it, and, again _idiomatically_, write an explicit 'break' after every 'case' statement sequence. (But we're here in a C newsgroup and complaints make no sense.) > > If you want fallthrough, label it with "[[fallthrough]]", or a comment > or other technique recognised by your tools and by your fellow programmers. This is indeed what I do on these rare conditions where I use it. In other languages it's even more hidden (than a missing 'break'); Kornshell for example uses ;; for a "break" logic and ;& for the (fall-through) "continue" logic in its 'case' statements. (And 'break [N]' and 'continue [N]' have another logical context (used only in loops). >>> I can imagine bugs in real, released code as a result of default >>> fallthrough in switches. [...] Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 14:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) |
| Message-ID | <uo8jki$20hg6$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380323 |
On 17/01/2024 12:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 17.01.2024 11:44, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/01/2024 06:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 16.01.2024 16:45, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> Default fallthrough switch behaviour is different in that it is >>>> potentially counter-productive and dangerous. As someone who uses good >>>> tools, and knows how to use them, it is not an issue for my own code - >>>> but it can be a source of error in other people's code. >>> >>> It can also just be a useful code pattern, as in Duff's Device. >>> >> >> No. >> >> Fallthrough switch behaviour can be useful (and not in the monstrosity >> that is Duff's Device, but mostly when you have multiple switch cases >> that are handled by the same code). > > I don't think that multiple case-labels are the interesting part; > they are just a bulky syntactic way to collect items - compare > that [syntactically] with case statements in other languages (e.g. > in Pascal). In many (most? all?) C based language, OTOH, you have > to identify every single value by a 'case' keyword, and you also > _have_ to use an explicit 'break' to not "fall through". The fall > through logic is interesting (sort of) if you want to "re-use" > code from other case labels. - Not that this feature would make > any program easier to maintain. (I would avoid that.) > > The use of "code patterns" (like the mentioned Duff's Device) is > often an indication to support features that the language doesn't > natively support; I see them often (for example) in Awk. It's not > something I would strive for in cleanly written software. But it's > usable as an idiomatic expression for a subset of (specific) tasks. > YMMV. Of course different people have different styles and needs. For my own use, I vastly prefer to write the code as cleanly as possible and let the optimiser generate code roughly like Duff's Device if that's the most efficient. But other people have other requirements and preferences. > >> >> /Default/ fallthrough switch behaviour is not good. > > But this is the case with C-based languages; we have to accept it, > and, again _idiomatically_, write an explicit 'break' after every > 'case' statement sequence. > I accept it, but dislike it and make sure my tools will warn me if there is unintentional default fallthrough. > (But we're here in a C newsgroup and complaints make no sense.) > Hey - without complaints, this newsgroup would be almost empty :-) >> >> If you want fallthrough, label it with "[[fallthrough]]", or a comment >> or other technique recognised by your tools and by your fellow programmers. > > This is indeed what I do on these rare conditions where I use it. > > In other languages it's even more hidden (than a missing 'break'); > Kornshell for example uses ;; for a "break" logic and ;& for the > (fall-through) "continue" logic in its 'case' statements. (And > 'break [N]' and 'continue [N]' have another logical context (used > only in loops). > >>>> I can imagine bugs in real, released code as a result of default >>>> fallthrough in switches. [...] > > Janis >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 19:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Switch fallthrough considered harmful? (was Re: Effect of CPP tags) |
| Message-ID | <uo96m4$25cee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380331 |
On 17.01.2024 14:10, David Brown wrote: > > Of course different people have different styles and needs. For my own > use, I vastly prefer to write the code as cleanly as possible and let > the optimiser generate code roughly like Duff's Device if that's the > most efficient. [...] Of course. And I agree. My comment might have sounded more positive than these tricks deserve. I just wanted to emphasize that by using code patterns we can often circumvent language deficiencies. And that C can anyway hardly be considered a cleanly designed language. (*duck* :-) > >> (But we're here in a C newsgroup and complaints make no sense.) > > Hey - without complaints, this newsgroup would be almost empty :-) Well, here our expectations (maybe) differ. ;-) Frankly, this thread is pathological! (I've never seen such before.) I feel really bad about opening that subject (which had already been answered after a dozen replies!) - and then it became off-topic, and gigantic, with what, 350 posts?, and a lot of them like tapeworms, and all the repetitions, and whatnot. But I'm new in this NG, so I'll better silence for now... Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web