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 16 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 34 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo39j7$u3sc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380170 |
On 15/01/2024 09:51, Gabriel Rolland wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > [snip] >>> I'm new here, so please forgive my ignorance. What's yours? >>> I suppose what I'm asking is: What exactly is your goal here, Bart? >> >> What is anyone's goal here? >> >> This newsgroup is just a bunch of old-timers who mainly discuss the >> finer points of the C standard, although the group has been more or >> less dead for the past couple of years. > > Hello there, everyone, this is actually my first post on Usenet at > all. I started configuring and reading it like two days ago. It is not > really a test since I'd like to reply to some content here. Welcome to the group - and as a new C programmer! We don't /just/ discuss the finer points of the C standards, but that is definitely something we do cover, and you'll be hard pushed to find a discussion forum with more standards experts than you find here. We are happy to discuss all kinds of aspects of C programming, but if you need platform-specific help or help with particular libraries, it's not often a good place - but we might be able to suggest alternatives. It's worth starting a new thread if you have something specific - a lot of people will already have marked this thread as pointless and ignored! > This group > seems rather lively, I guess it is partly thanks to you, Bart. Oh, Bart does not lack in enthusiasm and energy for his postings :-) He is, however, often confusingly inaccurate about C. Ask some questions, and you'll quickly see which regulars give answers that work for your needs (some are better at getting the exact details right, others are better at explaining in layman's terms). > >> Since there are rarely any people who post about any practical >> problems, I think they mainly use stackoverflow and reddit for >> that. The regulars mainly just argue amongst themselves. > > I'm kind of young and getting into programming, in C mainly, because I > like backend stuff in general. I dislike going to stackoverflow or > reddit. I reckon these are useful platforms but not open to free > discussion like it is the case here in Usenet. So this newsgroup is not > dead and I find it still useful. > >> I'm somewhat of an outsider and I like to point out things that I >> believe are wrong in things like the C language and the assorted >> collection of Unix-specific tools that apparently go with it. >> >> I'm an outsider because I don't routinely use C, or any of the tools, >> and because I don't have background in Unix-based development. I have >> a different perspective. > > This may get on the nerve of some people. But it is interesting. Like > when you made a point about the redirection (>) of binary output to > stdout, the people that corrected your assumption of this operator > teached me a lot about how the redirection of stdin works. They say the best way to get help on the internet is not by asking a question, but by posting a wrong answer and waiting to be corrected. Bart has tried this a lot, but he is not good at listening to the corrections. Unsurprisingly for a newsgroup titled "comp.lang.c", most people here use C a lot, or have used it a lot in the past, and most people here are interested in the language. Bart is an outsider in that sense. Most of us also use one or more different languages for various purposes. Many of us use *nix systems (typically, but not always, Linux) rather than Windows or Macs - unless you are doing Windows or Mac specific development, *nix is generally considered more developer friendly. But it's far from an exclusive rule. > >> So, what happens here is that I mention something that might be some >> bizarre quirk of C, or some weird, unfriendly way some tool works, or >> anything that goes against common-sense or intuition, or that I find >> has caused me grief. >> >> And then the regulars, instead of agreeing, go on the defensive. Some >> go on the attack, saying I'm the one at fault, I should RTFM, or do >> this or that, or that I'm ignorant, etc etc. (You've seen the thread.) >> >> So since I have nothing better to do**, I like to defend myself. And >> sometimes it is fascinating seeing people defend the indefendable. It is fascinating to see how Bart defends himself against imaginary attacks, tilting at windmills. When Bart finds something he doesn't like about C (and he finds a /lot/ that he doesn't like), he is unable to distinguish between replies that say "I don't like it either, but I can live with it", or "It is this way because of ...", or "Some people /do/ like it", or "You have misunderstood - the feature works like this...". In Bart's mind, any reply gets read as "We all love everything about C and its a perfect language". This often leads to unproductive threads, such as this one. > > If I recall the ongoing thread, there was two "indefendable" statements: > a) make is useless and cryptic > b) gcc's outputing of binaries to a.out by default is useless and > cryptic > > Since *a* has been explained already. I'll just give my two cents on > *b*. > When I'm learning to program, I use to have a lot of source files in the > same repository. I don't want't the binaries, I just want to play with > the source and sometimes, compile them and see if they compile correctly > and the behavior is correct. Outputting the binary to a.out by default > instead of "hello.o" is sort of useful here. For two reasons : > 1. I don't have the overhaul of remembering how did I call that source > file in that particular moment when I wrote it. I know I have to call > ./a.out and that's it. > 2. It doesn't crowds my directory with lots of useless binaries. > A tool that you might find useful when playing around is <https://godbolt.org>. It is an online compiler. In particular, it makes it extremely easy to test bits of code with a variety of compilers, and any command line options you like, and look at the generated assembly. (You can also run the program, but I personally find looking at the assembly more useful.) >> All people need to do is be honest. > > I agree. I think most of us do. > >> Does that answer your question? >> >> (** That's not quite true, this is taking me away from my current >> project. But when people openly insult me, I can't let it go. They >> need to stop replying.) > > You are then on a long quest. Good luck.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 17:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87cyu2v995.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #380176 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 15/01/2024 09:51, Gabriel Rolland wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [snip] >>>> I'm new here, so please forgive my ignorance. What's yours? >>>> I suppose what I'm asking is: What exactly is your goal here, Bart? >>> >>> What is anyone's goal here? >>> >>> This newsgroup is just a bunch of old-timers who mainly discuss the >>> finer points of the C standard, although the group has been more or >>> less dead for the past couple of years. >> Hello there, everyone, this is actually my first post on Usenet at >> all. I started configuring and reading it like two days ago. It is not >> really a test since I'd like to reply to some content here. > > Welcome to the group - and as a new C programmer! > > We don't /just/ discuss the finer points of the C standards, but that > is definitely something we do cover, and you'll be hard pushed to find > a discussion forum with more standards experts than you find here. We > are happy to discuss all kinds of aspects of C programming, but if you > need platform-specific help or help with particular libraries, it's > not often a good place - but we might be able to suggest alternatives. > > It's worth starting a new thread if you have something specific - a > lot of people will already have marked this thread as pointless and > ignored! > >> This group >> seems rather lively, I guess it is partly thanks to you, Bart. > > Oh, Bart does not lack in enthusiasm and energy for his postings :-) > He is, however, often confusingly inaccurate about C. Ask some > questions, and you'll quickly see which regulars give answers that > work for your needs (some are better at getting the exact details > right, others are better at explaining in layman's terms). > >> [snip] Thank you for the welcoming words and the quick intro :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WIbpN.25818$Wbff.3661@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #380170 |
Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> writes: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > >This may get on the nerve of some people. But it is interesting. Like >when you made a point about the redirection (>) of binary output to >stdout, the people that corrected your assumption of this operator >teached me a lot about how the redirection of stdin works. Sometimes it can help to start from the beginning: http://squoze.net/UNIX/v7/files/doc/06_shell.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 17:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878r4qv972.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #380183 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Gabriel Rolland <gabrielrolland@gmail.com> writes: >>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >> > >> >>This may get on the nerve of some people. But it is interesting. Like >>when you made a point about the redirection (>) of binary output to >>stdout, the people that corrected your assumption of this operator >>teached me a lot about how the redirection of stdin works. > > Sometimes it can help to start from the beginning: > > http://squoze.net/UNIX/v7/files/doc/06_shell.pdf Thanks a lot for the resource ! I will check that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo37b5$tj4f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380131 |
On 13/01/2024 23:39, bart wrote: > On 13/01/2024 21:42, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 13/01/2024 04:17, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2024-01-13, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> [...] >> It's true that some languages don't need "make" as much as C does. >> >> Nobody here has said otherwise, likely because other languages are >> largely off-topic here in comp.lang.c. > > Except 'make'? I get the impression that most programs written in C have > a large component written in 'make' too. A component you can't always > ignore since essential build info is encoded in it. > Can you remember a single thread in this newsgroup, over the last decade or so, that was about "make" and was not dominated by /you/ ranting about how you hate make? Other people might mention "make" in passing, just as they might mention gcc or clang or msvc, as a tool that is often used in connection with C programming. There's no more than that - once your rants are filtered out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 11:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uo3m43$1052g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380131 |
On 13/01/2024 23:39, bart wrote: > On 13/01/2024 21:42, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 13/01/2024 04:17, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2024-01-13, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> [...] >> It's true that some languages don't need "make" as much as C does. >> >> Nobody here has said otherwise, likely because other languages are >> largely off-topic here in comp.lang.c. > > Except 'make'? I get the impression that most programs written in C have > a large component written in 'make' too. ... That's not been my experience. The make file is generally only a small fraction of the total size of the source code files. This is particularly true if it was written by someone familiar with and making effective use of make's defaults, which are generally well-chosen (you would not agree, of course - but those defaults were chosen for a target audience with very different preferences from yours). > ... A component you can't always > ignore since essential build info is encoded in it. Well, yes - but that build info needs to be stored somewhere. It could be in the documentation, but especially for projects far more complicated than yours, equivalent documentation would be large, complex, and easily misunderstood. Putting that information in a make file is far more reliable, when targeting platforms that support make. It's also a lot easier to customize the make file than to figure out how to make corresponding modifications to the documentation. Part of the information could be put in a build script. In fact, that's what makefile controls: for each rule, there's a build script. By default, the "sh" shell is used to interpret those scripts, but you can change it to use your preferred scripting language instead. However, all of those parts of a makefile that aren't build scripts encode additional useful information that ordinary script languages aren't designed to handle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FYioN.153693$c3Ea.62372@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #380086 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> And this is a crucial feature; for professional non-trivial projects. > >Come on then, tell me how big your projects are. Are they bigger than >Scott Lurndal's 10Mloc example? (Which seems to be mostly Python source >code.) The example shown had 8 million lines of C and C++ code. Less than 10% was python. Granted, a significant fraction of that is generated from yaml descriptions of memory mapped registers, yet it is still compiled by the C and C++ compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unsnfb$3lb69$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380092 |
On 12/01/2024 22:22, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> >>> And this is a crucial feature; for professional non-trivial projects. >> >> Come on then, tell me how big your projects are. Are they bigger than >> Scott Lurndal's 10Mloc example? (Which seems to be mostly Python source >> code.) > > The example shown had 8 million lines of C and C++ code. Less > than 10% was python. > > Granted, a significant fraction of that is generated from yaml descriptions > of memory mapped registers, yet it is still compiled by the C and C++ compilers. I misread 700Kloc of Python as 7Mloc (figures should be comma-separated). Malcolm's BBX project is about 400Kloc of code. But 340Kloc of it is in one header file that contains data. That accounts for the executable being about 2MB. A cold build with mcc takes 2.7 seconds. Subsequent full builds after a minor change take 1.4 seconds. If I wanted I can spend a few days removing the ASM intermediates, that would likely double the speed to 0.7 seconds, and probably 0.5 seconds if the compiler was optimised. Tcc is probably already at that, but has some issues with this code. If you remember, this is the project that needed CMake to produce the makefile (which didn't work). I build it with: c:\bbx\src\mcc @bbx with bbx containing: *.c freetype/*.c samplerate/*.c Fun fact 1: 'gcc @bbx' doesn't work. File-globbing (I assume just on this Windows version ) only works on the command line, not from inside a file like this. Fun fact 2: If I get rid of the file-globbing and list the files individually, gcc requires that \ is used as path separator, not /. I can also never remember which one it doesn't like. (My mcc accepts either.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 06:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unt8iv$3r6p1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380086 |
On 12.01.2024 22:01, bart wrote:
> On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then!
>>
>> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead
>> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance.
>
> Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that?
Oh, I accept that. - But then I also expect that you don't spread
uninformed nonsense.
>
> How about YOU learn how to build software without those tools?
You're continuing to make silly and stupid statements. - I thought
(given you know DEC and CP/M) you are not a child any more, yet
behave so.
What makes you think that I wouldn't be able to do trivialities?
>
>> It's a _simple_ tool - not complex, as you've previously posted -
>> where you can define dependencies of entities, and define commands
>> that create the targets if entities that are required by the target
>> had changed. Its basic syntax and also its logic is simple,
>
>
>> And this is a crucial feature; for professional non-trivial projects.
>
> Come on then, tell me how big your projects are. Are they bigger than
> Scott Lurndal's 10Mloc example? (Which seems to be mostly Python source
> code.)
Again playing childish? ("Mine is bigger that yours", sort of?)
If you're interested what I actually do and have done, I can tell
you. (Not that it would address or solve any inherent issue *you*
obviously have.)
The past decade (or so) "my" personal projects were only private
hobbies, i.e. small toy-projects from a couple lines to a couple
thousand lines. But I when I speak about "professional software
engineering" I am rather speaking about the professional projects.
Some outline; I was engaged in projects of various sizes. I don't
recall the (not very significant) LOC numbers; these were anyway
only in one case relevant, in a refactoring project of a large
software component (used by at that time 1000+ software companies
for their products, and at that time by nearly 20 million people
in our country). The projects that I led myself or was member of
ranged from a handful on-site persons to many hundreds persons
spread across several sites and even different companies. And
the development durations from very short ranges up to years. The
areas for which the various software projects was developed were;
for the big telecommunication companies (e.g. BT, Dt. Telekom),
for the financial sector, for the state government). We used local
tools for our site(s), and also collaborative tools. The source
code or libraries were partly imported by collaborating companies,
locally they were spread across various project component file
systems. It had been tens thousands of files (I don't recall the
exact number) and millions of lines of code (dito.). Everyone in
the project was able to work on any of the sub-projects or parts,
no specific knowledge (say, about compiler or library versions)
was necessary by the individual member. Make was a standard tool
almost everywhere. Other tools as well; configuration management,
version control, test environments, project management tools, etc.
These were all professional software projects, as opposed to my
(or your) toy projects.
>
>>>
>>> That is something I've never needed done automatically in my own work (I
>>> do it manually as I will know my projects intimately when I'm working
>>> with them).
>>
>> Yes, we know. You've repeatedly shown that you are actually doing
>> small one-man-shows in projects that I can only call toy-projects.
>
> This is incredibly patronising.
I was merely pointing out that you explained yourself (a couple
of times) what sort of projects you are working on; I just named
them toy-projects to make apparent to you where we need a more
professional approach, and that you only address with your view
your personal small isolated programming bubble. It's still quoted
above with context, here again (for example):
"I will know my projects intimately when I'm working with them"
and you also mentioned I think more than once that you work alone.
You might admit that this sort of manageable programming is very
different from professional projects (as I depicted some above).
>
> What is wrong with one-man projects?
There's nothing wrong with them. (I said above that privately I
also do such "projects".) At some point of project complexity you
are advised to handle it more professionally, though. And that is
usually supported by sophisticated project tools and environments.
>
> What is wrong with writing non-professional software? Is that the same
> as non-commercial?
(The question is IMO quite irrelevant, not worth discussing.)
>
> Where is the line between a toy project and a non-toy project? Is it
> related to how lines or how many modules an application might have, or
> the size of the final binaries?
>
> Is it to do with the number of end-users?
There are a couple factors that you may also derive from above.
(Beyond that it's not worth discussing where one ends or the other
begins.)
It's worth to understand, though, that 'make' is not a complex or
unnecessary tool. If you understand its (simple) concept you can
(but don't need to) also use it for your small projects. You only
gain something, not lose anything; once you've overcome the barrier
of acceptance for a probably unknown or unfamiliar tool it's really
nice. (For example I maintain a dvds.csv file and generate a HTML
page for it that I then upload; why not put the generation process
commands and the simple dependencies in a Makefile and just call
'make' and/or 'make install'? - I have tons of little toy-projects
and instead of having everything in mind I have it either in a
Makefile or in a small shell script that occasionally gets into a
Makefile, so that I only need to do a 'make' in whatever context
I actually am.)
It should have meanwhile become obvious that no one forces you to
use Makefiles. And that there's also nothing to say again one's
toy-projects. - Only you cannot derive from such primitive cases
about the sensibility of useful (and even necessary) tools and be
constantly whining and complaining about them only because you
don't see the gain you have with the tools. And that you don't
know them and badmouth them doesn't make it easier to discuss;
you should at least inform yourself if you feel the need to piss
on well established tools.
>
> [...]
>
>
>> Professional projects have a different situation in many respects.
>> (I don't go into detail here, since you're anyway only interested
>> in your local comfort zone.)
>
> No, don't. I assume you've got some hugely complicated app with a
> million moving parts.
You again expose your habit to wrongly "assume" (= to make up)
things just because you don't understand the topic lack the
experience and avoid the facts.
> It's so big that nobody knows what's what. Your
> compilers are so slow that you HAVE to use dependencies to avoid
> spending 90% of the day twiddling your thumbs.
Clueless as you are you are not in the position to be cynical.
In the industry where I've done my professional projects we had
no slow computers. But we had also no toy-projects. Yes, some of
the (full!) compile runs lasted many hours; companies just cannot
afford that waste of time if you compile everything only because
you have no professional computer scientists that know how things
have to be done more sophisticated to reduce time. If you manage
the dependencies you can reduce the effort to compile a software
system to minutes if not seconds. - Ignoring this simple fact is
not only unprofessional, it's plain stupid.
>
> That's a million miles from the stuff I do, yet you still insist /I/
> should be using all the same complicated tools you do.
Despite you have repeatedly been told by many posters you still
repeat that nonsense. - No one said you should be using it. Are
you so pathological that you don't get it?
> [...]
>
> Let me tell about my own tools:
(You constantly do and no one cares.)
> [...]
>
> So, now tell me where the hell 'makefiles' would fit into that scenario.
It's answered above by me as an experience report and suggestion
to consider. It's (only) up to you to take action or ignore it.
>
> Just accept that some of this stuff is out of /your/ comfort zone.
You actually know nothing about my "comfort zone"; as opposed to
you I wasn't repeatedly complaining about this or that.
Rather that's, as we observed here so often in your posts, a very
typical childish sort of a defense kick.
> [...]
>
> If I needed a tool like 'make', I would have created one.
It's very interesting that despite your very small and restricted
experience you'd decide to follow the "not invented here" principle
instead of using long established, refined, and well accepted tools
that are already available (and even for free), and reliably work.
> [...]
>
>> Clearly your imputations are based on ignorance.
>
> Yeah. I could say the same thing. But usually I try and stay polite and
> argue only against ideas and not people.
Yet you don't.
>
> Have a good day.
I wish you the same.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-13 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unu5gg$3v5e2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380124 |
On 13/01/2024 05:54, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 12.01.2024 22:01, bart wrote:
>> Come on then, tell me how big your projects are. Are they bigger than
>> Scott Lurndal's 10Mloc example? (Which seems to be mostly Python source
>> code.)
>
> Again playing childish? ("Mine is bigger that yours", sort of?)
No. I know that my projects are very small compared to some in the
industry. The sizes of OSes and all sorts of apps tell me that.
I was interested in where you draw the line.
(This is the same with every kind of product. Some companies produce a
787 airliner with 5 million components, others make a plastic comb with
just one.)
Some 90% of the binaries in my Windows 11 OS are under 1MB. Each of
those forms a 'program unit' which is what my comments about 'building'
are about: how to compile the multiple source files into one binary.
Beyond that you get the problems of creating large 'systems' which is
what you seem to be into.
For the first, I don't rate the use of 'make', not with the designs I've
made in languages and compilers.
For the other, the use of make seems archaic.
> If you're interested what I actually do and have done, I can tell
> you. (Not that it would address or solve any inherent issue *you*
> obviously have.)
>
> The past decade (or so) "my" personal projects were only private
> hobbies, i.e. small toy-projects from a couple lines to a couple
> thousand lines. But I when I speak about "professional software
> engineering" I am rather speaking about the professional projects.
>
> Some outline; I was engaged in projects of various sizes. I don't
> recall the (not very significant) LOC numbers; these were anyway
> only in one case relevant, in a refactoring project of a large
> software component (used by at that time 1000+ software companies
> for their products, and at that time by nearly 20 million people
> in our country). The projects that I led myself or was member of
> ranged from a handful on-site persons to many hundreds persons
> spread across several sites and even different companies. And
> the development durations from very short ranges up to years. The
> areas for which the various software projects was developed were;
> for the big telecommunication companies (e.g. BT, Dt. Telekom),
> for the financial sector, for the state government). We used local
> tools for our site(s), and also collaborative tools. The source
> code or libraries were partly imported by collaborating companies,
> locally they were spread across various project component file
> systems. It had been tens thousands of files (I don't recall the
> exact number) and millions of lines of code (dito.). Everyone in
> the project was able to work on any of the sub-projects or parts,
> no specific knowledge (say, about compiler or library versions)
> was necessary by the individual member. Make was a standard tool
> almost everywhere. Other tools as well; configuration management,
> version control, test environments, project management tools, etc.
>
> These were all professional software projects, as opposed to my
> (or your) toy projects.
OK, thanks. So this is more like you working for a large organisation,
having extensive premises, perhaps multiple sites, HR departments,
finance, sales, managers, directors, receptionists ...
While some people like me have worked for a small company of 10 or 20
people. I was also self-employed for a decade. In both cases
professional work was done with real, paying customers, just like a
million such small businesses. We sold products in a half a dozen countries.
You might appreciate then that in a small organisation things might be
done differently, more simply, with fewer overheads and more informally.
This can also mirror what happens with software projects. Most
open-source software I've wanted to build has been on the scale of a
small business or even a one-man operation.
Yet next to their small premises is a giant office-block containing all
the auto-config and makefile stuff that you are obliged to deal with if
you want to use their product.
>> What is wrong with one-man projects?
>
> There's nothing wrong with them. (I said above that privately I
> also do such "projects".) At some point of project complexity you
> are advised to handle it more professionally, though. And that is
> usually supported by sophisticated project tools and environments.
My situation is different: I created my own languages, working tools and
environment. I've always made it a part of development, to ensure a fast
development cycle and to be productive.
Complexity was kept under control. Projects were necessarily small
(because it was just me, but also because of limited machine resources).
> It's worth to understand, though, that 'make' is not a complex or
> unnecessary tool. If you understand its (simple) concept you can
> (but don't need to) also use it for your small projects.
If I was to use 'make', I would have to implement it myself. This I once
started to do, until I started reading the manual, and it went on for
ever. I then disliked it even more.
> You only
> gain something, not lose anything; once you've overcome the barrier
> of acceptance for a probably unknown or unfamiliar tool it's really
> nice. (For example I maintain a dvds.csv file and generate a HTML
> page for it that I then upload; why not put the generation process
> commands and the simple dependencies in a Makefile and just call
> 'make' and/or 'make install'? - I have tons of little toy-projects
> and instead of having everything in mind I have it either in a
> Makefile or in a small shell script that occasionally gets into a
> Makefile, so that I only need to do a 'make' in whatever context
> I actually am.)
It sounds like a classic 'hammer and nail' scenario. (If your only tool
is a hammer, every task looks like a nail.)
> It should have meanwhile become obvious that no one forces you to
> use Makefiles.
That is actually not true. Clearly, I don't use them for my own stuff.
But sometimes I want to build what ought to be a straightforward
program, but the necessary info is hidden inside a makefile.
Or in the case of LIBJPEG, inside 15 makefiles, one for each compiler
(for that famously portable language known as C).
However, one was a generic makefile which I was able to use, in a rare
case of make actual working.
I was then able to capture the commands generated, and so determine what
the relevant files were.
This was somewhat complex as it first produced libraries in the form of
.a files, which were then used with further .c for building multiple EXEs.
All /I/ needed are the list of C files to submit to a compiler for each
program. Here, 'make' was just one huge obstacle. Why don't the docs
just list the relevant files (as well the makefiles)?
> And that there's also nothing to say again one's
> toy-projects.
LIBJPEG is not up there were your huge professional product, but it is
hardly a toy. It could easily have been one of the libraries you used.
(It's just rather over the top for a JPEG encoder/decoder!)
> In the industry where I've done my professional projects we had
> no slow computers. But we had also no toy-projects. Yes, some of
> the (full!) compile runs lasted many hours
So you had slow compilers. Either that or your product was huge.
A fast compiler like tcc can generate 10MB of binaries per second per
core (even on my slow PC).
Running it for one hour would create a 36GB binary.
OK, your compilers will do more analysis and will optimise, but it still
sounds slow. No wonder you have to use make!
I take it there was no one whose job it was to overview the efficiency
of the overall process. But presumably changing languages and tools or
even just overhauling the software to remove cruft was out of the question.
However, unless the end product was one monolithic binary, you'd be able
to parallelise some processes - or was that already done and it still
took hours?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-14 01:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <unvcgi$5emq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380124 |
On 13/01/2024 05:54, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > It's very interesting that despite your very small and restricted > experience I don't agree. My experience has spanned mainframes, minicomputers and generations of microprocessors. I designed and built 8-bit and 16-bit machines and video boards from components. I've programmed them from nothing, even bootstrapping my first HLL starting from binary machine code, via hex and assembly through to a compiler. Throughout the 80s I wrote endless drivers, graphics libraries, GUI libs, FP emulation, maths libs, took care of fonts, invented image file formats, and started writing GUI applications and scripting languages. Not one line was written in any other language. I believe it was quite remarkable to make money from commercial projects using a complete 'full stack' toolset written 100% by me and in 100% my languages. > you'd decide to follow the "not invented here" principle > instead of using long established, refined, and well accepted tools > that are already available (and even for free), and reliably work. It wasn't really a choice at first. C compilers for microprocessors c. 1982 were hopelessly slow, and that's if it they could somehow be got into our machines since every 8-bit computer used a different disk format. They were also expensive, and I wasn't even a programmer so no one was going to pay for it. Besides, I'd looked in The C Programming Language, and thought it was dreadful. I perservered with my own language which compiled in a second or two rather than minutes. I've never looked back. It's no secret here that I don't like C, but I sometimes need to use some libraries which come as C source. But for those (the ones where I can crack the makefile encryption!), I have my private C compiler to generate binaries. Isn't that something? Sometimes you need to go against the flow. Some innovative products have come about from people deciding to do their own thing. Mine however are personal tools. I already know you're going to reply to this, if at all, with a big <SNIP> and a comment 'Nobody Cares'. Jealous any? I wouldn't swap places with you or your apps that can take hours to build. IMV somebody is doing something wrong. (This is my current 2024 set of language tools: https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/CompilerSuite.md There is no 'make'. It is utterly pointless here.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 12:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo36ir$tj4f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380086 |
On 12/01/2024 22:01, bart wrote: > On 12/01/2024 18:02, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 12.01.2024 18:09, bart wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >> >> Why don't you just read about those two tools and learn, instead >> of repeatedly spouting such stupid statements of ignorance. > > Because I've repeatedly said I don't need them. Why can't you accept that? > You've told us. We believe you. You live in a small, limited little world where you can get by with the tools you make yourself and don't have to interact with other developers or other software. By definition, your tools do all you need - if you want a new feature, you add it to the tool. And they don't do more than you personally need. If you are happy like that, great. (You are apparently not particularly happy about all of this, based on your posts, which is a shame.) But /please/ stop complaining when other people do things differently. /You/ are the odd one out here. You alone. Your methods might be better for /you/, for your own very limited and specific needs - they are not suitable for the rest of the world. No one is forcing you to use make, or C, or Linux, or anything else that triggers you. If you /want/ to use these things, and want to ask for help or advice, that's fine - as long as you do so in good faith and try to learn from the answers. But all you seem to want to do is fight and argue, making a fool of yourself in your wilful ignorance. That's not particularly good for anyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 12:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo35sv$tj3v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380068 |
On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote: > On 12/01/2024 16:34, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 17:12, bart wrote: > >> I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you >> suggesting that your 40 year old DOS IDE is equivalent to modern IDE's ? > > No. Only that the way I normally work hasn't changed a great deal. > OK. Some of us have learned to take advantage of new technology, new possibilities, new software, new ideas, new tools. We use old tools in new ways, new tools in old ways - whatever gives a more pleasant and productive environment, with the best quality results. >> Are you trying to say you can use your own tools for your own >> language, and rely on a simple script for C compilation, and can't >> handle anything else in a build process? > > I'm separating the fundamental build-process for a program from what is > needed for interactive development and testing. > Fair enough. These are different tasks. For source code that must be distributed in buildable form (and the huge majority of source code written is /not/ distributed), you need a build tool geared at working on a wide variety of systems, supporting different compilers and OS's, and ensuring that the correct flags and details are in place. Makefiles can be a good way to hold this, but for support of a bigger variety of systems, autoconfig has been a very successful (if heavy-handed) solution that works across many dozens of systems. A more modern tool that is simpler in use and works better for common modern systems (including Windows) is CMake. For development purposes, your tools are aimed at efficient development and getting the most help possible from the tools in identifying and fixing errors. So there you choose your compiler specifically as something with a lot of warnings and other static checking, and you use a build system that minimising build time and helps keep track of the options you need. Make is the obvious choice that works well for many uses - beyond that, you want integrated build and test systems, continuous build systems, and that kind of thing. So while "make" is neither necessary nor sufficient for all situations, it provides a very versatile tool that can cover a great deal of situations. If you want one tool that is good enough for a wide range of uses, "make" is the one to use. It will be overkill for some cases, and for other cases it might need a makefile generator like CMake or Meson (or an IDE), but overall it works great for many things. That's why it is so popular, and the standard build tool for such a high proportion of projects. > Makefiles you see supplied with open source projects don't generally > make that distinction. Why should they? An optimal deployment build makefile is likely to be different from an optimal development build makefile. But should the open source developers make that effort? For a big project that is used across a wide range of systems, targeting automatic builds by non-developers, the answer is probably yes. For a smaller project, where people interested in the source code are expected to be competent C or C++ developers, why should they go out of their way to spoonfeed newbies or people who have allergies to standard tools? If the project targets Windows specifically, perhaps they will provide CMake files or even MSVC project files. If the main development platform, and the main target, is *nix, then why should you complain that their build system targets that? If you don't like it, ask for your money back. > > But I can see you're struggling with the concept of simplicity. > Simple solutions are fine for simple problems. A hammer is a simple tool, but it's not much use for screws. I like a toolbox - I have several simple tools, like hammers and screwdrivers. And I have a few complex tools, like an electric drill with interchangeable bits, and a few very niche tools for odd uses (like these special bits for removing broken screws). You live in your own little world, where everything is nailed together, and a hammer is all you need. That's great for /you/, but stop getting your knickers in a twist just because the rest of the world is different. > >>>> download to a target board via a debugger, > > (Hey, I used to do that! Not a makefile in sight either; how is that > possible? > Grow up. > I used to do that with no special tools, no external software and no > external languages. I had to write assemblers for any new devices I has > to use.) > Yes, I've heard it before. If you wanted a keyboard, you had to carve it out of a rock with your teeth. When I learned assembly, I assembled code to hex by hand. On paper. I don't consider that particularly relevant to my work today. > >>>> and all sorts of other bits and pieces according to the needs of the >>>> project. One makefile beats a dozen scripts. >>> >>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >>> >> >> I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still >> have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is >> just a script with a complicated syntax. > > So, what the hell is it then? What makes it so special compared with any > other scripting language? You've answered part of that yourself below! > > All I can see is that it can create dependency graphs between files - > which have to be determined from info that you provide in the file, it's > not that clever - and can use that to avoid recompilation etc of a file > unless its dependencies have changed. > Make coordinates builds. As you say, it creates DAG graphs for the tasks needed for the build, based on rules that the user can control. This means that the user does not have to provide details for everything - make works out a lot from those rules. It does, however, need to be told which targets you want to build, and what their dependencies are. This can be done manually, or using make's features, or in combination with other tools such as gcc's support for generating dependency files, or by using makefile generators (like CMake). Simple makefiles for small projects often list dependencies manually, more complex makefiles for bigger projects have more scalable and easy to use solutions. For most of my projects, make (with gcc) figure out all the required C and C++ files, and all the right dependencies, automatically. Once it is set up, I don't change the makefile even when adding or removing source files. Oh, and make does all this with support for parallel builds - keeping track of multiple jobs, including tools that themselves use multiple cpu cores at a time. > That is something I've never needed done automatically in my own work (I > do it manually as I will know my projects intimately when I'm working > with them). Some developers work on lots of projects. Some projects have lots of developers working on them. Again, your methods are suited only to your own little world, not to other people. >>> If you're curious about what 'as' expects and speculatively try 'as >>> --help', it displays 167 dense lines. >>> >> >> Are you trying to convince people that your assembler is better than >> gas because yours has fewer features? Bizarre. > > It's simpler and gives a simple summary of how it works. Don't you document your tools? > > Clearly your idea of 'better' is to be vastly more complicated. My idea of "better" varies by context - it isn't as overly simplified as you seem to think. In your little world, "better" means "does what Bart wants at the moment - no one else matters". In the real world, tools are written for other people - "better" means it does what /they/ want, in the full knowledge that people want different things. > > I guess an assembler which will only work for the processor you happen > to be working with is no good at all. It has to also support dozens that > are not relevant to the task in hand. Yes. Because that means I get well-tested tools used by huge numbers of people, with lots of support, lots of features, and lots of versatility. And I get them for free, or for low cost - vastly cheaper than if they were written specifically for /me/. It doesn't matter if it also supports features I don't need, languages I don't need, targets I don't need. It matters that they support the features I need, the languages I need, the targets I need. And it is a huge bonus that when I want to use a new feature, or language, or target, it's already there. I've had my share of target-specific tools. I've dealt with different compilers for each target, each with their own idiosyncrasies, limitations, extra features, etc. I've written more than my fair share of Keil-C and Imagecraft-C and other code that has to be fine-tuned for a specific compiler and target. I've used a dozen assemblers, all with their own way of handling directives and other bits and pieces. With gcc and binutils, I have /one/ toolchain base that I have used for perhaps 8 different targets - it was an enormous step forward. I don't care if it also supports another dozen targets - maybe I'll use some of them in the future too. (Oh, and I used "make" for all of this - pretty much all the assemblers and compilers.) > > BTW my assembler can directly produce EXE and DLL files; in that regard > it IS better than 'as' and probably most others which like to off-load > that critical bit. > Again, what you see as an advantage is only relevant in your limited little world. (And I can appreciate that it /is/ an advantage for your usage.) I sometimes need specific features in my linker setup file - things that cannot be done in a simple assembler. Not that I particularly need to care about the linker or assembler, since it is all handled by the gcc driver controlled by make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-15 14:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87ttnedz70.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #380172 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote:
[...]
>> I'm separating the fundamental build-process for a program from what
>> is needed for interactive development and testing.
[...]
>> Makefiles you see supplied with open source projects don't generally
>> make that distinction.
>
> Why should they? An optimal deployment build makefile is likely to be
> different from an optimal development build makefile. But should the
> open source developers make that effort? For a big project that is
> used across a wide range of systems, targeting automatic builds by
> non-developers, the answer is probably yes.
[...]
Is it? Most open source projects I've seen use "make" both for
developer incremental builds and end user full builds. My experience is
that this works just fine -- especially given make's ability to do
parallel builds.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo6mb8$1j9er$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380172 |
On 15/01/2024 11:45, David Brown wrote: > On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote: >>>>> download to a target board via a debugger, >> >> (Hey, I used to do that! Not a makefile in sight either; how is that >> possible? >> > > Grow up. > >> I used to do that with no special tools, no external software and no >> external languages. I had to write assemblers for any new devices I >> has to use.) >> > > Yes, I've heard it before. If you wanted a keyboard, you had to carve > it out of a rock with your teeth. No. I bought a keyboard for £12. I didn't try and make one (I was unemployed and broke) but it was hopeless. (BTW that keyboard was a joy to use: it used a simple 8-bit port, with the top bit strobing when a key was ready. Compare with what's involved with using a USB keyboard today, if you didn't have a 10GB OS to take care of it.) > When I learned assembly, I assembled code to hex by hand. On paper. I > don't consider that particularly relevant to my work today. You need to get it right: * I built a machine that could only be programmed in actual binary * That binary code was used to write a hex editor * The hex editor was used to write an assembler * The assembler was used to write the compiler for my first language. (Which was then used for areas of interest which included 3D graphics, image processing and frame-grabbing, also using my hardware) * Later this compiler was rebooted on a better machine (with actual floppy disks!), and eventually it was self-hosted. (This is when I first looked at the K&R book - it cost me £12, £2 more than my Z80 processor - and dismissed it.) * Among many other tasks, the tool was used to write comprehensive assemblers for the 80188, and an Intel controller, 8035 or 8051. The point is, getting an entirely different, self-sufficient perspective compared with those who even then were using traditional tools. I had to solve the problem for example of combining multiple object files (in my own format of course) into one executable. Everybody else used a complex bit of software called TaskBuilder, or Linker. I just dashed together a program which could do the job as fast as it could read from disk. Task accomplished. But people are still messing about with object files and linkers now (and those mysterious .a and .lib files even when it's going to be using shared library anyway). They are taking those traditional tools and making them bigger and more complex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 20:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <loBpN.26873$SyNd.13811@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #380270 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 15/01/2024 11:45, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote: >(BTW that keyboard was a joy to use: it used a simple 8-bit port, with >the top bit strobing when a key was ready. Compare with what's involved >with using a USB keyboard today, if you didn't have a 10GB OS to take >care of it.) If you ignore, of course, the fact that a 64KB BIOS can easily handle the entire USB stack sufficient to support both USB mass storage devices, networking devices (PXE) and USB Human Interface Devices (keyboards, mice). No 10GB OS involvement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-16 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uo6r43$1k29c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380273 |
On 16/01/2024 20:09, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 15/01/2024 11:45, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote: > >> (BTW that keyboard was a joy to use: it used a simple 8-bit port, with >> the top bit strobing when a key was ready. Compare with what's involved >> with using a USB keyboard today, if you didn't have a 10GB OS to take >> care of it.) > > If you ignore, of course, the fact that a 64KB BIOS can easily handle > the entire USB stack sufficient to support both USB mass storage > devices, networking devices (PXE) and USB Human Interface Devices (keyboards, mice). > > No 10GB OS involvement. > It seemed to take quite a few years before the early Linuxes I played around with 25+ years ago managed to support USB, among other things. So it's only easy if you know how. Reading the current key on the Z80 (already in ASCII) was one IN instruction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-17 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uo8ece$1vpg1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380274 |
On 16/01/2024 22:06, bart wrote: > On 16/01/2024 20:09, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 15/01/2024 11:45, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2024 18:09, bart wrote: >> >>> (BTW that keyboard was a joy to use: it used a simple 8-bit port, with >>> the top bit strobing when a key was ready. Compare with what's involved >>> with using a USB keyboard today, if you didn't have a 10GB OS to take >>> care of it.) >> >> If you ignore, of course, the fact that a 64KB BIOS can easily handle >> the entire USB stack sufficient to support both USB mass storage >> devices, networking devices (PXE) and USB Human Interface Devices >> (keyboards, mice). >> >> No 10GB OS involvement. >> > > It seemed to take quite a few years before the early Linuxes I played > around with 25+ years ago managed to support USB, among other things. At that time, device support on Linux was very limited. But it took off, and since perhaps 15 years ago it is rarely an issue in practice. Out of the box support is certainly a world ahead of Windows, and new buses (such as new USB speeds) are always supported first on Linux. The last time I had trouble with USB and keyboards was something like 5 or 6 years ago - with Windows. It was a Dell server, where all the USB ports were USB 3. The keyboard and mice were fine in the BIOS and Dell setup stuff, but partway through the Windows Server installation, Windows wanted to move to its own system and drivers - and did not have USB 3 support out the box. It was an utterly absurd situation where the installation process needed an extra drivers disk from Dell just to get the keyboard working, even though it worked fine in the first part of the installation. (And needless to say, Linux had no issues with it.) > > So it's only easy if you know how. Reading the current key on the Z80 > (already in ASCII) was one IN instruction. Making support for USB keyboards (either as host or device) on modern microcontrollers isn't bad, assuming you have basic USB libraries for your device. It's certainly much more involved than it used to be - but it is also more flexible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gQeoN.32682$U1cc.11735@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #380066 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 12/01/2024 17:12, bart wrote: >> On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: >> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >> > >I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still >have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is just >a script with a complicated syntax. I can't tell if he's just trolling, or if he really believes what he writes. There's no way in bash to generate a dependency graph, which is the primary function of the make utility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-01-12 19:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <unrv37$3i3ch$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #380070 |
On 12.01.2024 18:40, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 12/01/2024 17:12, bart wrote: >>> On 12/01/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2024 00:20, bart wrote: > >>> It looks like 'make' is competing with 'bash' then! >> >> I have no idea why you think that - except perhaps because you still >> have no concept of what "make" is and what it does, and think it is just >> a script with a complicated syntax. > > I can't tell if he's just trolling, or if he really believes what > he writes. My suspicion had been that he's maybe no person but an AI bot. It's just too pathological what he writes and how he behaves to be sure that he's a human poster. - On the other hand, this is Usenet, and everything is possible. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web