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 19 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 34 Next page →
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 11:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo8cuc$1vhf8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380067 |
On 12/01/2024 16:50, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote:
>>
>> But with 'as', it just sits there. I wonder what it's waiting for; for
>> me to type in ASM code live from the terminal?
>
> It does that so you can pipe the assembler source code in to the
> assembler.
>
> $ cat file.s | as
>
> $ cat file.c | cpp | c0 | c1 | c2 | as > file.o
>
> or, if you want, you can type in the assembler source directly.
>
> Or you can save it in a file and supply the file argument to the command.
>
> None of which your stuff supports, which makes it useless to me.
I had a spare 15 minutes so I got my scripting language to do this:
csource:=(
"#include <stdio.h>",
"int main(void) {",
" puts(""Fahrenheit 451"");",
"}")
csource -> mcc -> aa -> run
'mcc' turns a source string (or a list of strings as here) into a string
containing assembly code.
'aa' turns an assembly string into a string containing binary PE data.
'run' runs that PE data. Output is:
Fahrenheit 451
Those 3 functions are 40-50 lines. Here's another invocation:
readstrfile("/c/hello.c") -> mcc -> aa -> run
A shell seems to be a poor man's scripting language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 18:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240117102412.168@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380322 |
On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 16:50, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote:
>>>
>>> But with 'as', it just sits there. I wonder what it's waiting for; for
>>> me to type in ASM code live from the terminal?
>>
>> It does that so you can pipe the assembler source code in to the
>> assembler.
>>
>> $ cat file.s | as
>>
>> $ cat file.c | cpp | c0 | c1 | c2 | as > file.o
>>
>> or, if you want, you can type in the assembler source directly.
>>
>> Or you can save it in a file and supply the file argument to the command.
>>
>> None of which your stuff supports, which makes it useless to me.
>
> I had a spare 15 minutes so I got my scripting language to do this:
>
> csource:=(
> "#include <stdio.h>",
> "int main(void) {",
> " puts(""Fahrenheit 451"");",
> "}")
>
> csource -> mcc -> aa -> run
>
> 'mcc' turns a source string (or a list of strings as here) into a string
> containing assembly code.
>
> 'aa' turns an assembly string into a string containing binary PE data.
>
> 'run' runs that PE data. Output is:
>
> Fahrenheit 451
>
> Those 3 functions are 40-50 lines. Here's another invocation:
Scott's script is just that one line; just the external commands are
called. It doesn't require function wrappers around external commands.
We have a ton of useful scripting languages; yet the shell is not
going away for process control tasks.
The only reason to use the shell for larger coding tasks that go
beyonod process control is that is that it's the only language you can
rely on being installed.
A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build,
such as for runing a ./configure script.
Those projects aren't doing that in order to amuse the user with
irony; boostrapping always proceeds from what we have available, to what
we would like to ultimately use.
--
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 | 2024-01-17 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo9aju$2610i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380358 |
On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> csource -> mcc -> aa -> run
>>
>> 'mcc' turns a source string (or a list of strings as here) into a string
>> containing assembly code.
>>
>> 'aa' turns an assembly string into a string containing binary PE data.
>>
>> 'run' runs that PE data. Output is:
>>
>> Fahrenheit 451
>>
>> Those 3 functions are 40-50 lines. Here's another invocation:
>
> Scott's script is just that one line; just the external commands are
> called.
So was my invocation. Scott's example didn't provide source code, it
comes from a file, as did my second example.
> It doesn't require function wrappers around external commands.
>
> We have a ton of useful scripting languages; yet the shell is not
> going away for process control tasks.
>
> The only reason to use the shell for larger coding tasks that go
> beyonod process control is that is that it's the only language you can
> rely on being installed.
One big problem is that it tends to be OS-specific so is not
cross-platform. So you can't run .BAT files on Linux, and you can't run
. files (that is, Linux shell scripts) on Windows. (File extensions
would be mighty useful here!)
Real scripting languages can work across OSes and also come with their
own libraries. Linux shell seems to require most of Linux to function.
> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build,
> such as for runing a ./configure script.
Funnily enough, mine don't.
My scripting language builds with this one command on Windows (and
without invoking dozens of other processes; just itself):
mm qq
When I was testing it on Linux, I could build it on Linux from original
sources using:
./mu qq
(This used a C intermediate file and needed a C installation. 'mu' is a
binary that could itself be built with a command like: cc mu.c ...)
I'm not suggesting mine is used, just saying it is possible to have a
cross-platform language on a small scale and that can be built using a
minimal tool-set.
Certainly one that is sufficient for the minor scripting tasks we're
taking about.
(As for Bash, is it a language running in a permanent REPL loop, or is
it more of an application?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7nYpN.354614$83n7.12579@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #380364 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build, >> such as for runing a ./configure script. > >Funnily enough, mine don't. Perhaps you find it humorous. A posix shell comes with pretty much every system used for software development (even windows has WSL for serious software development). Your scripting language isn't available on any of them. >(As for Bash, is it a language running in a permanent REPL loop, or is >it more of an application?) It's an executable, just like everything else on unix/linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 23:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo9p0e$286f8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380377 |
On 17/01/2024 22:18, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >>> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build, >>> such as for runing a ./configure script. >> >> Funnily enough, mine don't. > > Perhaps you find it humorous. A posix shell comes with pretty > much every system used for software development (even windows > has WSL for serious software development). I suspect it's more that it's been browbeaten into having such a system because so many developers were deliberately, inadvertently or spitefully building in so many dependencies from the Unix world into their software and their procedures. > Your scripting language isn't available on any of them. > >> (As for Bash, is it a language running in a permanent REPL loop, or is >> it more of an application?) > > It's an executable, just like everything else on unix/linux. So, it's code, just like on every computer. That's useful to know, thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 16:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87zfx3cwvo.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380381 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 17/01/2024 22:18, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>> (As for Bash, is it a language running in a permanent REPL loop, or is
>>> it more of an application?)
>> It's an executable, just like everything else on unix/linux.
>
> So, it's code, just like on every computer.
>
> That's useful to know, thanks.
bash.exe (or just "bash" on non-Windows systems), cmd.exe, and
powershell.exe are all similar applications. They implement different
languages.
All are optimized for interactive use, reading and executing one-line
commands typed on a keyboard into a (probably virtual) text terminal.
All are also interpreters for scripting/programming languages, and can
be used to execute a script stored in a file. bash is an enhanced
shell based on earlier Unix shells.
bash happens to be implemented in C. I don't know how cmd.exe and
PowerShell are implemented.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-18 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240117161344.847@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380381 |
On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 17/01/2024 22:18, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>>> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build, >>>> such as for runing a ./configure script. >>> >>> Funnily enough, mine don't. >> >> Perhaps you find it humorous. A posix shell comes with pretty >> much every system used for software development (even windows >> has WSL for serious software development). > > I suspect it's more that it's been browbeaten into having such a system > because so many developers were deliberately, inadvertently or > spitefully building in so many dependencies from the Unix world into > their software and their procedures. You can get shell scripts running on Windows. Macs support then natively. The availability of the shell language is better than any other; the places where it doesn't run out of the box are not many. Also, no operating system that is still in wide use has a better command language. We could imagine, say, writing the build scripting of a project in the batch file language of CMD.EXE, and making that work on all the platforms: Mac, GNU Linuxes, Solaris, OpenBSD, Android/Termux what have you. For all the inconvenience of having to install that interpreter first, we would then have to contend with a comically poor quality language. It's worse than some CS freshman's semester project. Shell has multiple implementations. At one point I tested the ./configure script of my TXR project with Bash, Zsh, Dash, Ash, public domain Ksh, as well as some POSIX shells of some proprietary Unixes like Solaris's POSIX shell. Though the shell language is quirky, it is well specified and understood to the point that fairly complex code can be written that works across multiple implementations. As far as Windows goes, nobody actually builds my program for Windows other than me. I provide a GUI installer. That's what you do for Windows. How your stuff builds on Windows is almost immaterial. The only people building your FOSS stuff from code are (1) maintainers of FOSS distros, who always use environments with shells and make, etc; and (2) a few enthusiast users who build for themselves, also in such environments. Anyone who has something to do on Windows gets your installer. -- 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 | 2024-01-18 00:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo9sfu$28k8t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380388 |
On 18/01/2024 00:25, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 17/01/2024 22:18, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build, >>>>> such as for runing a ./configure script. >>>> >>>> Funnily enough, mine don't. >>> >>> Perhaps you find it humorous. A posix shell comes with pretty >>> much every system used for software development (even windows >>> has WSL for serious software development). >> >> I suspect it's more that it's been browbeaten into having such a system >> because so many developers were deliberately, inadvertently or >> spitefully building in so many dependencies from the Unix world into >> their software and their procedures. > > You can get shell scripts running on Windows. You mean via layers like WSL or MSYS2 or CYGWIN? I don't really consider that running on Windows. > Macs support then > natively. > > The availability of the shell language is better than any other; > the places where it doesn't run out of the box are not many. > > Also, no operating system that is still in wide use has a better > command language. Yes, I have an idea what you mean by better. Something that gives low priority to user-friendliness and that is bristling with advanced features that mean loads of gotchas. I'm not sure what happened on my journey with computers that I'm totally oblivious to shells, other than they provide the most basic commands to manipulate files and launch programs. > We could imagine, say, writing the build scripting of a project in the > batch file language of CMD.EXE, and making that work on all the > platforms: Mac, GNU Linuxes, Solaris, OpenBSD, Android/Termux what > have you. > > For all the inconvenience of having to install that interpreter first, > we would then have to contend with a comically poor quality language. > It's worse than some CS freshman's semester project. What language do you have in mind? (Bear in mind that this is exactly what I've long thought about C.) > > Shell has multiple implementations. At one point I tested the ./configure > script of my TXR project with Bash, Zsh, Dash, Ash, public domain Ksh, > as well as some POSIX shells of some proprietary Unixes like Solaris's > POSIX shell. I wonder why any other scripting languages exist? Why does TXR? What's missing from Bash (and why are there so many variations)? I can tell you that mine came into being as an add-on scripting language for my applications. I think it was about 15 years before it became an independent language. > Though the shell language is quirky, it is well specified and understood > to the point that fairly complex code can be written that works across > multiple implementations. > > As far as Windows goes, nobody actually builds my program for Windows > other than me. I provide a GUI installer. That's what you do for > Windows. How do you get past AV software? > How your stuff builds on Windows is almost immaterial. > > The only people building your FOSS stuff from code are (1) maintainers > of FOSS distros, who always use environments with shells and make, etc; > and (2) a few enthusiast users who build for themselves, also in such > environments. Anyone who has something to do on Windows gets your > installer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-18 04:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240117181142.279@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380390 |
On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 18/01/2024 00:25, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 17/01/2024 22:18, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 17/01/2024 18:47, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-01-17, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> A good many scripting languages require a shell in order to build, >>>>>> such as for runing a ./configure script. >>>>> >>>>> Funnily enough, mine don't. >>>> >>>> Perhaps you find it humorous. A posix shell comes with pretty >>>> much every system used for software development (even windows >>>> has WSL for serious software development). >>> >>> I suspect it's more that it's been browbeaten into having such a system >>> because so many developers were deliberately, inadvertently or >>> spitefully building in so many dependencies from the Unix world into >>> their software and their procedures. >> >> You can get shell scripts running on Windows. > > You mean via layers like WSL or MSYS2 or CYGWIN? I don't really consider > that running on Windows. What is it? To the left of Windows? Behind Windows? Under Windows? It doesn't matter which one of these prepositions it is, because in this situation being discussed all those programs are doing is providing an environment for building something. That something itself doesn't require that shell environment in its own installation. >> Macs support then >> natively. >> >> The availability of the shell language is better than any other; >> the places where it doesn't run out of the box are not many. >> >> Also, no operating system that is still in wide use has a better >> command language. > > Yes, I have an idea what you mean by better. Something that gives low > priority to user-friendliness and that is bristling with advanced > features that mean loads of gotchas. In fact, a lot of the gotchas are gratuitous with respect to the features. But there is a way to do things correctly if you understand how command lines are expanded. I can write a piece of shell code where I know what it's going to do just about anywhere. It's harder than it needs to be, or at least sometimes, and you have to know more than you should. The code isn't something to be crazy about. But I feel that with things like the Microsoft .BAT language, for instance, you cannot hit the same quality target, no matter how much you know. Microsoft's PowerShell language is a lot better (if I believe what others say). It's not widely installed though. You'd be better off relying on Python from that perspective. >> We could imagine, say, writing the build scripting of a project in the >> batch file language of CMD.EXE, and making that work on all the >> platforms: Mac, GNU Linuxes, Solaris, OpenBSD, Android/Termux what >> have you. >> >> For all the inconvenience of having to install that interpreter first, >> we would then have to contend with a comically poor quality language. >> It's worse than some CS freshman's semester project. > > What language do you have in mind? (Bear in mind that this is exactly > what I've long thought about C.) That batch file one in the previous paragraph. >> Shell has multiple implementations. At one point I tested the ./configure >> script of my TXR project with Bash, Zsh, Dash, Ash, public domain Ksh, >> as well as some POSIX shells of some proprietary Unixes like Solaris's >> POSIX shell. > > I wonder why any other scripting languages exist? Why does TXR? What's > missing from Bash (and why are there so many variations)? A heck of a lot is missing from shells, but what's not missing is that they are there on the majority of today's platforms. It's a bootstrap step. It's like asking, what's missing from the BIOS (or any other boot environment) that we need to boostrap into an OS? If the OS is so great, why is there still the boot firmware when the machine fires up, and not just the OS? Boostrapping: going from something we have that doesn't meet all our needs, into something we want. But there is also the fact that nearly all scripting languages "suck" for the simple use case of coordinating commands. Also, I don't know of any non-shell scripting language that has mature POSIX job control. POSIX job control is a set of C APIs and their behavior geared toward implementing the interactive job control features of a job control shell. In a job control shell, you can move commands between foreground and background. The shell acts as a traffic cop, controlling moving those jobs between those states. Background jobs have limited access to the terminal. They can be suspended or executing. >> As far as Windows goes, nobody actually builds my program for Windows >> other than me. I provide a GUI installer. That's what you do for >> Windows. > > How do you get past AV software? For some AV to identify your installer as a threat, it has to be a false positive. I ran into that only once before. -- 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 | 2024-01-18 10:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uoaucc$2i2b6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380397 |
On 18/01/2024 04:30, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > Microsoft's PowerShell language is a lot better (if I believe what > others say). It's not widely installed though. You'd be better off > relying on Python from that perspective. All I know about PowerShell is that instead of typing 'prog' to run the 'prog.exe' you've just created, you have to do '.\prog' just like you have to do './prog' in Linux. Plus it has a gazillion options, accessed from diverse places, so you can spend half your time just trying to get a consistent background colour. MS really know how to go to town on such things. (When I tried it just now, the colour of the text I was typing was the same colour as the background. That makes things interesting.) >> How do you get past AV software? > > For some AV to identify your installer as a threat, it has to be a false > positive. I ran into that only once before. With TXR Win64 installer, Windows Defender stopped me from running the program (until I clicked 'more info' then there was an option to 'run anyway'). Often, ZIPs are just ignored. (Even gmail will not have them as attachments.). More typically, you can get an actual EXE file, but it's treated as suspicious by AV and may be quarantined. This is why these days, if somebody wants to run a binary EXE, I make it available as a C source file. Since if they have experience of compiling programs from source, they will already know how to run such programs without AV interference. (Also, their AV will be familiar with the EXE patterns from their C compiler; the EXEs my compiler creates may look alien.) Note that a new Windows machine will stop you running /any/ executable that is not verified from Microsoft Store or wherever (not even their own cmd.exe), until you change a non-reversible setting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-18 19:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20240118113155.496@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #380404 |
On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 18/01/2024 04:30, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> Microsoft's PowerShell language is a lot better (if I believe what >> others say). It's not widely installed though. You'd be better off >> relying on Python from that perspective. > > All I know about PowerShell is that instead of typing 'prog' to run the > 'prog.exe' you've just created, you have to do '.\prog' just like you > have to do './prog' in Linux. I don't know anything about PowerShell. In the case of the POSIX-like shells, this is just a consequence of the . directory not being listed in the PATH variable, which is an end-user configuration matter. If you care about the convenience of just typing "prog", more than about the security aspect, you can just add . to your PATH. > Plus it has a gazillion options, accessed from diverse places, so you > can spend half your time just trying to get a consistent background > colour. MS really know how to go to town on such things. Looks like you have nowhere to run. Don't like Unix; and the Mirosoft's next generation shell is too complex. > With TXR Win64 installer, Windows Defender stopped me from running the > program (until I clicked 'more info' then there was an option to 'run > anyway'). Yes; what good would the name "Defender" be if you cold just download a random executable and run it without any prompt? If you get an installer signed by Microsoft, you can get around that. > This is why these days, if somebody wants to run a binary EXE, I make it > available as a C source file. But they need a C compiler EXE to compile it. This is a complete non-starter for applications which are complex and don't target programmers. Even programmers won't use a program on Windows that they have to figure out how to compile for Windows. > Since if they have experience of compiling programs from source, they > will already know how to run such programs without AV interference. OK, now I understand why you need C compiling to be dead easy. You'd like to ship .c files to Windows users. -- 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 | 2024-01-18 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uoc18g$2o31j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380423 |
On 18/01/2024 19:40, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 18/01/2024 04:30, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2024-01-18, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> Microsoft's PowerShell language is a lot better (if I believe what >>> others say). It's not widely installed though. You'd be better off >>> relying on Python from that perspective. >> >> All I know about PowerShell is that instead of typing 'prog' to run the >> 'prog.exe' you've just created, you have to do '.\prog' just like you >> have to do './prog' in Linux. > > I don't know anything about PowerShell. In the case of the POSIX-like > shells, this is just a consequence of the . directory not being listed > in the PATH variable, which is an end-user configuration matter. > > If you care about the convenience of just typing "prog", more than > about the security aspect, you can just add . to your PATH. > >> Plus it has a gazillion options, accessed from diverse places, so you >> can spend half your time just trying to get a consistent background >> colour. MS really know how to go to town on such things. > > Looks like you have nowhere to run. Don't like Unix; and the Mirosoft's > next generation shell is too complex. As you know by now, I expect very little of shell programs. I also only use a tiny corner of Windows. Remember I used to be quite adept at using 8-bit machines with 64KB of memory and running off floppies. >> This is why these days, if somebody wants to run a binary EXE, I make it >> available as a C source file. > > But they need a C compiler EXE to compile it. It's either that or run my EXE. > This is a complete non-starter for applications which are complex > and don't target programmers. So how are those applications distributed on Linux? > > Even programmers won't use a program on Windows that they have to figure > out how to compile for Windows. That would be me too, everytime I want try out someone's project or use some library. At least I make the process as simple as it can be without using a binary: my generated C code needs 3 files from Tiny C which come to 235KB, and one C source file. It should build in a fraction of a second. But of course, you have to pick holes in that! "It's far too complicated". "Supply a binary instead". Whether someone will accept my binaries is up to them. But since my programs are related to languages, such people will be fairly technical. (I also have other choices: I can supply the bulk of an application in a special binary format of my own. That then only needs a 12KB actual EXE to launch, that should be easier to get past the AV. Or it can be an 800-line C program to be compiled locally.) In the distant past when I had lots of non-technical customers then of course we supplied binaries. But no one was worried about viruses then. >> Since if they have experience of compiling programs from source, they >> will already know how to run such programs without AV interference. > > OK, now I understand why you need C compiling to be dead easy. > > You'd like to ship .c files to Windows users. Windows users who are programmers interested in different languages. Or who want to learn the simplest way of distributing an application which is one step away from binary. And there's a bonus: the same 'dead easy' way also works on Linux. But I've lost track of what you're objecting to: * If I supply a binary executable, is that good or bad from your POV? * If I supply a one-file C version that be trivially compiled locally into a binary, is that good or bad? * Is the only thing acceptable to you, to supply a C version in 178 source files in 34 nested directories, together with a collection of 'configure' files and makefiles, and that will only build in a Linux environment? AFAIK, if I wanted to supply a program to any Linux user, I can't just supply a binary, since every Linux is a bit different and they run on more different kinds of processor. This is where MS Windows reigned supreme.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 11:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uodhkm$3359r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380427 |
On 18/01/2024 21:21, bart wrote: > > AFAIK, if I wanted to supply a program to any Linux user, I can't just > supply a binary, since every Linux is a bit different and they run on > more different kinds of processor. > As so often, "AFAIK" for you is not very far. For almost all Linux users, for almost all their programs, they download and install binaries - they don't compile from source. Compiling from source as a common method of distributing programs fell out of fashion some 20 or 30 years ago. Of course it is an absolutely essential aspect of free and open source that the source code is available, and you /can/ compile it yourself. But for the great majority, they don't do that. Intermediaries - typically Linux distributions - get the source and compile the binaries, and users download the binaries. For developers or companies who don't want to distribute source, or who want to provide the users the convenience of binaries but it's not appropriate to include the programs in distros, it is normal to provide only one or two binaries - an x86-64 binary, and sometimes also an AArch64 binary if that is a likely target. It can be more complicated if the software has to integrate tightly with different aspects of the system, but that's usually not an issue for most software. > This is where MS Windows reigned supreme. You mean it is so much more limited?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 11:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uodlnd$33l4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380462 |
On 19/01/2024 10:07, David Brown wrote: > On 18/01/2024 21:21, bart wrote: > >> >> AFAIK, if I wanted to supply a program to any Linux user, I can't just >> supply a binary, since every Linux is a bit different and they run on >> more different kinds of processor. >> > > As so often, "AFAIK" for you is not very far. > > For almost all Linux users, for almost all their programs, they download > and install binaries - they don't compile from source. Compiling from > source as a common method of distributing programs fell out of fashion > some 20 or 30 years ago. That's good news. So I can build an ELF binary on my WSL today, I can email it to you and you can run it on the nearest Linux machine? I assume it will only work if that machine happens to be x64 (as that's what mine is)? Or will it not work even then? What are the rules? Do I have to make a version for every variant of Linux and make it available in the 'apt-get' repository? > For developers or companies who don't want to distribute source, or who > want to provide the users the convenience of binaries but it's not > appropriate to include the programs in distros, it is normal to provide > only one or two binaries - an x86-64 binary, and sometimes also an > AArch64 binary if that is a likely target. > > It can be more complicated if the software has to integrate tightly with > different aspects of the system, but that's usually not an issue for > most software. > > >> This is where MS Windows reigned supreme. > > You mean it is so much more limited? In being able to run EXEs created by anyone on any machine, and being able to run them on any Windows computer, even years later. (I think you can still run 32-bit EXEs compiled in the 1990s today. 16-bit EXEs can still run today on a 32-bit Windows.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uodn5e$346kj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380463 |
On 19/01/2024 12:17, bart wrote: > On 19/01/2024 10:07, David Brown wrote: >> On 18/01/2024 21:21, bart wrote: >> >>> >>> AFAIK, if I wanted to supply a program to any Linux user, I can't >>> just supply a binary, since every Linux is a bit different and they >>> run on more different kinds of processor. >>> >> >> As so often, "AFAIK" for you is not very far. >> >> For almost all Linux users, for almost all their programs, they >> download and install binaries - they don't compile from source. >> Compiling from source as a common method of distributing programs fell >> out of fashion some 20 or 30 years ago. > > That's good news. So I can build an ELF binary on my WSL today, I can > email it to you and you can run it on the nearest Linux machine? I know little about WSL - I have never used it, and don't have a current Windows system. But if it is a Linux virtual system, and your elf file doesn't rely on uncommon shared libraries and doesn't have low-level interaction with the system (i.e., you'd call it an "application" rather than a "system utility"), the probably yes, it would work. Copy it to a USB stick, boot Linux, and try it yourself. > > I assume it will only work if that machine happens to be x64 (as that's > what mine is)? Obviously. > > Or will it not work even then? > > What are the rules? Do I have to make a version for every variant of > Linux and make it available in the 'apt-get' repository? If you want rules, find a suitable place to look for them or discuss them. I have no interest in talking more about this here, and I think I've already said more than most in this group are willing to do. It doesn't matter what anyone says, you will always twist things to fit your preconceived ideas that everything Linux-related is terrible in every way, and that somehow you think it all proves that your own tools are brilliant and the rest of the world is wrong. So try google. > > >> For developers or companies who don't want to distribute source, or >> who want to provide the users the convenience of binaries but it's not >> appropriate to include the programs in distros, it is normal to >> provide only one or two binaries - an x86-64 binary, and sometimes >> also an AArch64 binary if that is a likely target. >> >> It can be more complicated if the software has to integrate tightly >> with different aspects of the system, but that's usually not an issue >> for most software. >> >> >>> This is where MS Windows reigned supreme. >> >> You mean it is so much more limited? > > In being able to run EXEs created by anyone on any machine, and being > able to run them on any Windows computer, even years later. I run Linux programs on all sorts of machines without recompiling, years later. Of course the processor family must be compatible if you don't want to use emulation. > > (I think you can still run 32-bit EXEs compiled in the 1990s today. > 16-bit EXEs can still run today on a 32-bit Windows.) You can't get new 32-bit Windows systems now - there is no 32-bit Windows 11, and manufacturers have not been able to sell new machines with 32-bit Windows 10 for years. If you have to use 16-bit Windows programs on a modern computer, you can of course use Wine to run it on Linux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uodsqp$359q6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380464 |
On 19/01/2024 11:41, David Brown wrote: > On 19/01/2024 12:17, bart wrote: > It > doesn't matter what anyone says, you will always twist things to fit > your preconceived ideas that everything Linux-related is terrible in > every way, That's funny. I find that Linux people always have terrible things to say about software development using Windows, usually totally unjustified. The main reason is that on Linux they are reliant on a huge mountain of dependencies that don't exist on Windows, even when creating supposedly cross-platform products. (That there have been many thousands of programs developed on Windows without that mountain totally passes them by.) My issues with it are when *I'm* expected to recreate that same mountain even when building an application supposedly written in C. > and that somehow you think it all proves that your own tools > are brilliant and the rest of the world is wrong. Um no. It's just that I can do without that mountain. If I can do that on Windows (remember, Windows doesn't equal Visual Studio; that's just one over-the-top application), I can do it on Linux. And I have done. So if I can do it, so can anyone. /That/ is what is superior. What /I/ do is to remove complexity and simplify. What everyone else does is to add complexity, extra dependencies and extra layers of software. Apparently it doesn't matter how big that mountain gets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 15:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uoe1o5$3667i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380467 |
On 19/01/2024 14:18, bart wrote: > On 19/01/2024 11:41, David Brown wrote: >> On 19/01/2024 12:17, bart wrote: > >> It doesn't matter what anyone says, you will always twist things to >> fit your preconceived ideas that everything Linux-related is terrible >> in every way, > > That's funny. I find that Linux people always have terrible things to > say about software development using Windows, usually totally unjustified. And feel free to ignore these if you have good reason to believe they are not fact based. Don't feel free to exaggerate what people say (I say Linux is better for most development and programming work, other than when targeting Windows itself - but you /can/ use Windows for many tasks, and I do use Windows as well as Linux). And don't imagine that just because you feel someone has said something unjustifiably bad about X, it means it is appropriate to say something similarly unjustifiably bad about Y. That's just petty. > > The main reason is that on Linux they are reliant on a huge mountain of > dependencies that don't exist on Windows, even when creating supposedly > cross-platform products. You are making stuff up. People do cross-platform (and I assume by this you just mean "for x86-64 Linux and x86-64 Windows") all the time. /You/ have difficulty with this kind of thing, but many other developer groups manage. (I'm sure there are others who have problems too.) There are no mountains. What there is, that seems to be a stumbling block for you, is a set of common utility programs that has been standardised and used on most serious OS's for decades (since most serious OS's, except for Windows, aim for POSIX compatibility). These are easily available on Windows too, and once you install them, they are there and usable. I've had them on every Windows PC I have used since I had internet access. I can fully understand how someone who is only familiar with Windows (and DOS before it) doesn't know about these utilities or where to get them, and finds them strange at first. It is incomprehensible, however, to be having the same questions, difficulties and complaints after a decade or so. It is also incomprehensible how someone can rant endlessly about "simplification" and "easy of use" when their claimed solution is to make non-standard limited duplications of the functionality already found on other machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uoe30i$36dp8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380471 |
On 19/01/2024 14:42, David Brown wrote: > On 19/01/2024 14:18, bart wrote: > It is also incomprehensible how someone can rant endlessly about > "simplification" and "easy of use" when their claimed solution is to > make non-standard limited duplications of the functionality already > found on other machines. The programs I write ARE easy to build, using ONLY a compiler. You don't want to accept that, you'd rather it involved those mountains of stuff. Maybe you don't like it because you're rather just type 'make', no matter much pointless garbage is invoked. Fine, a makefile for most of my projects would be two lines long. Happy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uoeai1$37q4p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380472 |
On 19/01/2024 16:03, bart wrote: > On 19/01/2024 14:42, David Brown wrote: >> On 19/01/2024 14:18, bart wrote: > >> It is also incomprehensible how someone can rant endlessly about >> "simplification" and "easy of use" when their claimed solution is to >> make non-standard limited duplications of the functionality already >> found on other machines. > > The programs I write ARE easy to build, using ONLY a compiler. > > You don't want to accept that, you'd rather it involved those mountains > of stuff. /Please/ stop making stupid, exaggerated and incorrect claims about what other people want or think. I don't give a *beep* how easy or hard your programs are to compile - they are utterly irrelevant to me. I don't have reason to believe they are very relevant to anyone else either. But even if they were useful to me, or at least of interest to me, it does not matter to me if they need a whole range of standard utilities to build - because every system I have, or ever have had, has the standard utilities. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the concept of not caring? It is absurd to suggest I /want/ your programs to need "make" or other utilities to compile - I *do* *not* *care* if it needs them or not. There is no advantage or disadvantage to me if it uses make, sed, awk, bash, date. There is no advantage or disadvantage to me if it does not need them either. It is irrelevant. It /would/ be an inconvenience to me if it required some obscure and rarely used compiler like your own tools. TCC is also pretty obscure, but Debian has it in it's repositories. Needing an invasive tool that screws up your system, like MSVC, would also be a pain, as would anything that required very specific versions of tools. But that would only matter if your programs were of interest. And of course I accept that /you/ think it is important that you don't use tools that everyone else finds convenient and useful. I don't understand your reasons for that - it seems to be based on a determined battle to ensure that you fail to get anything you deem to be "Linux related" to work, combined with a fanaticism about "simple" that completely misses the point. But I don't think anyone here doubts that /you/ think this is all desperately important, even though pretty much no one else cares. And /please/ stop making an arse of yourself here by calling a dozen standard utilities "mountains of stuff".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-19 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uoeevt$38iuu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380497 |
On 19/01/2024 17:12, David Brown wrote: > On 19/01/2024 16:03, bart wrote: >> On 19/01/2024 14:42, David Brown wrote: >>> On 19/01/2024 14:18, bart wrote: >> >>> It is also incomprehensible how someone can rant endlessly about >>> "simplification" and "easy of use" when their claimed solution is to >>> make non-standard limited duplications of the functionality already >>> found on other machines. >> >> The programs I write ARE easy to build, using ONLY a compiler. >> >> You don't want to accept that, you'd rather it involved those >> mountains of stuff. > > /Please/ stop making stupid, exaggerated and incorrect claims about what > other people want or think. > > I don't give a *beep* how easy or hard your programs are to compile - > they are utterly irrelevant to me. I don't have reason to believe they > are very relevant to anyone else either. But even if they were useful > to me, or at least of interest to me, it does not matter to me if they > need a whole range of standard utilities to build - because every system > I have, or ever have had, has the standard utilities. > > Why is it so difficult for you to understand the concept of not caring? > It is absurd to suggest I /want/ your programs to need "make" or other > utilities to compile - I *do* *not* *care* if it needs them or not. > There is no advantage or disadvantage to me if it uses make, sed, awk, > bash, date. There is no advantage or disadvantage to me if it does not > need them either. It is irrelevant. > > It /would/ be an inconvenience to me if it required some obscure and > rarely used compiler like your own tools. TCC is also pretty obscure, > but Debian has it in it's repositories. Needing an invasive tool that > screws up your system, like MSVC, would also be a pain, as would > anything that required very specific versions of tools. But that would > only matter if your programs were of interest. > > And of course I accept that /you/ think it is important that you don't > use tools that everyone else finds convenient and useful. I don't > understand your reasons for that Because they don't work. Things like makefiles, even designed to work on Windows, had a 50% failure rate. Higher if they originated on Linux. 100% if they originated on Linux and expected to run in that environment. Your solution here is to replicated that environment even on Windows. Then the failure rate is much lower, if I use WSL (but it can still fail). However that doesn't produce the native binaries I need. You will say use MSYS2, and here I need to put my foot down - how many rabbit holes do I have to go down to just to build a C program? You obviously have a high tolerance of such rabbit holes. Apparently it is inconceivable to you to have an application written in C say, that can be compiled either on Linux or Windows using only a C compiler. > - it seems to be based on a determined > battle to ensure that you fail to get anything you deem to be "Linux > related" to work, combined with a fanaticism about "simple" that > completely misses the point. But I don't think anyone here doubts that > /you/ think this is all desperately important, even though pretty much > no one else cares. > > > And /please/ stop making an arse of yourself here by calling a dozen > standard utilities "mountains of stuff". Half of a Linux system, many thousands of lines of scripting code and makefiles, to build a project of a few dozen source files, is not a mountain? I've been looking at someone's C++ project which is a compiler for what they call a 'toy' language. There are 33 .cpp files. One of the dependencies however is something called LLVM. I've downloaded what appears to be the bundle needed to build this project. It is 140,000 files. Just unzipping it took 15 minutes. You guys just don't get it. What /I/ do is the exact opposite of this. You think it doesn't matter? A number of major language implementations that are currently using an LLVM backend are thinking of moving away from LLVM, or offering an alternative, BECAUSE it is so slow and cumbersome. But I will leave this alone now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web