Groups > comp.os.os2.programmer.misc > #241

Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C?

Path	csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, comp.os.os2.programmer.misc
Subject	Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C?
Followup-To	de.test
Date	Mon, 16 May 2011 11:10:53 +0100
Lines	20
Message-ID	<87sjsfymz6.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References	<iptr5l$tkb$1@speranza.aioe.org> <ce8a87e8-fffa-4287-84ee-271f0766c304@24g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <ipve3o$stk$1@dont-email.me> <98c2274e-bb28-4b2d-808b-2268443f05d1@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <iq0krm$kvl$1@dont-email.me> <8cc03ab1-4ecf-4f0b-ab5c-29a0e0f008da@28g2000yqu.googlegroups.com> <iq28ac$1nm$1@dont-email.me> <4b2830f1-dce5-4605-a99a-663af3a5be1d@35g2000yqy.googlegroups.com> <iq3fs7$pc7$1@dont-email.me> <c8e8e850-aa1a-4dd3-9f58-94ed708d25a8@z13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <iq50gu$46r$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T160558.P4093.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <iqp4od$1mk$1@dont-email.me> <IU.D20110515.T215017.P4453.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace	individual.net aCyi/ucFH7Z9lK8HabQJ9gKcDhwfkWPSGc0lDdxqecqpVsqfw=
Cancel-Lock	sha1:GtyY4/trqTt7vl7ibDd3F0U2C3s= sha1:nf0Xc+bj4/CkgPeK1Br5/T2KeoM=
User-Agent	Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux)
Xref	x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.unix.programmer:572 comp.lang.c:4059 comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32:312 comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:241

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Followups directed to: de.test

Show key headers only | View raw

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM>
writes:

[...]

>> My own programs are allowed to assume [...] a correspondingly early
>> version of POSIX, [...]
>>
> There's that narrow horizon right there, in your very own words.

Indeed. The 'narrow horizon' of an IEEE standard, compared to the wide
world of the single company (mostly accurate) which usually doesn't
bother complying to standards it didn't invent itself. This, of
course, not only being total nonsense but also crossposted to four
different groups and being off topic everyhwere because it is
essentially advocacy or - more accurelaty - a fan with an 'obsessive
compulsive' habit of trying to proselytize among the heathens.

F'up2 in appropriate group set. Don't reply to this posting.

Back to comp.os.os2.programmer.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 17:05 +0100
  Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 14:07 -0400
    Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-15 22:49 +0100
      Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-15 21:08 -0400
      Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-05-16 11:10 +0100
  Re: Avoiding recursive stack overflow in C? Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> - 2011-05-16 08:04 +0000

csiph-web