Re: Odd compiler behaviour?

From	Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Odd compiler behaviour?
Followup-To	comp.unix.programmer
Date	2016-03-09 15:32 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<20160309072603.528@kylheku.com> (permalink)
References	(17 earlier) <20160309002110.832d5b3b971d250318f72525@speakeasy.net> <nbor35$1r9e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nbotrc$ia9$1@dont-email.me> <nbp0pb$s4m$1@dont-email.me> <nbp2tg$41r$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: comp.unix.programmer

Show all headers | View raw

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.unix.programmer.]
On 2016-03-09, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 09/03/16 12:21, BartC wrote:
>> On 09/03/2016 10:31, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 09/03/16 10:40, spud@potato.field wrote:
>> 
>>>> Using those operators in that manner WAS a dumb idea.
>> 
>>> It was backwards compatibility, along with keeping things easier for
>>> compiler writers, that made << and >> a reasonable choice.
>> 
>> I couldn't see the point of using << and >> for that purpose.
>> 
>> With I/O you're dealing with a list of things to be dealt with in
>> sequence. There is already 'comma' to construct a list.
>> 
>> You just need one operator or function or keyword to say that you're
>> doing input or output with the items in that list. And guess what, C++
>> already has cin and cout for that!
>> 
>> (There might be technical reasons why an explicit operator per-item is
>> needed so that it can be over-loaded for user-defined types, but I don't
>> why this needs to be exposed. In any other language:
>> 
>>   print (a,b,c)
>> 
>> there might be an explicit 'tostring' method that is overloaded.)
>> 
>
> One of the purposes of the C++ iostreams operator was to replace the
> C-style printf variable argument function with something that had
> stronger types and allowed overloading for both built-in and
> user-defined types.  Mistakes equivalent to "printf("%i", 1.2)" would be
> compile-time errors, not run-time errors.  This was not possible within
> the language structure, using only commas - variable argument functions
> lose their type information.

I made an actual replacement for printf in C++ once. The syntax, at its
bare essence, was:

   format("format string"), arg, arg, arg, arg ...

format would construct an object, and then the commas are just member
function applications, going to various overloads of
"format &operator , (type)".

Yes, the comma operator, overloaded.

The fact that C++ objects have a lifetime tied to the overall expression
means that you can do things like have the args generate temporary
objects which are put into a linked list, and then processed in a second
pass. An expression like:

  cout << (format("..."), a, b, c) << endl;

can actually build up a linked data structure inside the format object
(a kind of run-time AST representing the format job), and then the <<
overload of that object walks the nodes of the structure and does the
actual formatting.

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 11:06 +0000
  Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 12:57 +0100
    Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 13:48 +0000
      Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-01 15:46 +0100
        Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 15:08 +0000
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 08:36 -0800
            Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 16:47 +0000
              Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 08:51 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 17:05 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 10:00 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 10:56 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-02 09:42 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 10:55 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-02 09:46 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-01 20:59 +0000
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 10:09 -0800
  Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 13:03 +0000
    Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 13:54 +0000
      Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-01 14:15 +0000
        Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-01 14:38 +0000
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-01 14:59 +0000
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-01 11:20 -0500
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-01 08:45 -0800
            Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 16:54 +0000
              Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-01 13:14 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 19:10 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-01 19:26 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 19:57 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-01 21:07 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-01 15:40 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 21:14 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-01 21:20 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-01 21:59 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-01 22:09 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 23:04 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-01 17:08 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-01 22:59 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 10:39 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 16:19 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 11:56 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 17:21 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 12:42 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:03 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-02 10:41 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 18:59 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-02 11:40 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 20:05 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 15:32 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 20:51 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 16:01 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 21:10 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-02 16:41 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-02 13:52 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2016-03-02 22:14 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-02 18:54 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-03-02 21:30 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-02 13:34 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-03-05 16:48 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-05 15:29 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-05 15:41 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-05 23:19 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-06 12:44 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-06 14:10 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-07 09:53 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-08 12:59 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-08 13:59 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-08 15:28 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2016-03-08 10:42 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-08 17:09 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-08 20:38 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-08 22:15 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-03-08 16:21 -0700
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-08 10:47 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-08 16:04 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-09 00:21 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-09 09:40 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-09 11:31 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-09 11:21 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-09 12:57 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 15:32 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 11:13 -0600
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-03-09 07:16 -0600
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-09 13:19 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 09:28 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 15:35 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 11:08 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-09 13:32 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2016-03-09 13:34 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-09 16:17 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2016-03-09 16:54 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 19:45 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 09:34 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-10 15:40 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 15:57 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 16:07 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-10 14:12 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 19:51 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-10 20:08 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 22:31 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 22:55 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-10 17:25 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-11 17:49 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-12 18:11 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-14 09:43 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-14 15:57 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-14 12:16 -0400
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-14 17:00 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-14 17:14 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-14 18:29 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-14 18:46 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-14 18:16 -0400
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-15 20:45 +1300
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-15 09:25 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:36 +1300
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-15 10:23 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-15 10:11 -0400
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-15 14:33 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-15 15:41 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-17 18:18 -0400
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> - 2016-03-17 23:01 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-18 09:44 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:31 +1300
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-29 08:32 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-29 21:46 +1300
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-29 09:25 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-29 13:22 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-29 14:07 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-29 15:59 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-29 15:12 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-29 17:27 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-30 08:35 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-29 16:29 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-30 08:23 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-30 13:14 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-30 13:38 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-30 15:20 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-29 16:23 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-18 15:58 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-18 16:20 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-19 02:46 -0400
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-15 15:42 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-15 21:55 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:37 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-03-31 19:25 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-09 15:17 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-09 16:23 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-09 19:30 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 14:40 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 09:28 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-10 10:57 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 10:29 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-10 12:50 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 12:21 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 12:22 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-10 13:01 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? spud@potato.field - 2016-03-10 13:55 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-03-10 08:29 -0800
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? gordonb.uf2r1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2016-03-12 03:36 -0600
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-03-12 10:13 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-13 23:11 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-13 22:12 +0000
                succint expressions (was: Odd compiler behaviour?) Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-09 11:04 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-09 11:39 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-09 19:51 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-10 01:00 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 09:27 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 15:24 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 11:10 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 19:14 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-09 20:18 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? gordonb.2x965@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2016-03-14 23:45 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-09 16:11 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-03-09 19:37 +0100
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-09 19:34 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-09 20:05 +0000
                [OT] Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-03-09 15:13 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-09 19:51 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2016-03-10 15:35 +0000
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? "James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> - 2016-03-09 00:21 -0500
                Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-03-01 21:01 +0000
          Re: Odd compiler behaviour? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-02 12:09 +0000
      Re: Odd compiler behaviour? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-01 14:18 +0000
        Re: Odd compiler behaviour? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-03-02 12:53 +0000
  Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-01 16:44 +0100
  Re: Odd compiler behaviour? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
    Re: Odd compiler behaviour? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-03-20 07:12 -0400

csiph-web