Re: Odd compiler behaviour?

From	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Odd compiler behaviour?
Date	2016-03-10 12:21 +0000
Message-ID	<878u1q8qx0.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <nbppuv$tsq$1@dont-email.me> <nbreo2$1oeg$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nbrg7l$afr$1@dont-email.me> <nbrib2$1u5e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nbrmsb$27t$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 10/03/16 11:29, spud@potato.field wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:57:03 +0100

[...]

>>> Look, just pretend they are normal keywords and don't use "overload" or
>>> "final" as other identifiers.  I'm sure you will manage fine.
>> 
>> One shouldn't have to "manage" with a brand new iteration of a language. This
>> is a symantic fuckup. But then this is C++ we're talking about, it goes with
>> the territory so I shouldn't be surprised. It should be called Bodge++.
>
> OK then, just let people who use C++ use it.  I don't expect anyone to
> have issues with the context-sensitive keywords, except for those who
> are determined to make as much trouble for themselves as possible.

Both final and override are Java-features imported into C++ (I'd wager a
bet that the 'foreach' loop came - via Java - from Perl although no one
will ever admit that). Java has 'final' as multi-keyword and some
expriences with code where everything not capable of running away on its
own was labelled 'final' made me stop using const in C code --- it
doesn't really add anything of value but optical noise, much easier to
recognize when the 'noise' looks unfamiliar. Considering these
experiences, final will be abused by people who want to write messy code
for some reason I'm not going to speculate about as an easy way to
achieve that. In return for this, it adds exactly nothing of value:
Stopping users from overriding methods or deriving classes because of
being cocksure that one's own design and implementation are just too
perfect to let the unwashed masses mess with it is just silly.

'Override' is useful in a language which supports overloading because it
enables the compiler to warn about 'accidental overloads', ie, errors
when trying to replicate a (complex) method signature. In Java, that's
an annotation,

@Override

ie, it's not a keyword but resides in a special namespace which is
user-extensible, eg, some code I'm working with has an

@Edit

annotation to indicate an object property whose old value should be
preserved prior to some 'user interaction' so that detecting what (if
anything) was changed can be done automatically and with universally
applicable code afterwards (code is written in Java 6).

Considering the past history of C++, there'll probably be several more
"standard revisions" adding more special-case constructs for dealing
with more special-cases until someone bites the bullet and adds a
generally usable annotation facility.

NB: My knowledge about C++ post-1998 is quite superficial. I have the
C++11 "C++ Programming Language" because I thought I should buy that for
professional reason but never completely read through it because the
prose (and the endless repetition of toy implementations of 'standard'
facilities followed by the equally endless "but you should never do
that") were just too tireseome.

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