Re: Odd compiler behaviour?

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Odd compiler behaviour?
Date	2016-03-02 13:34 -0800
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lnsi08tvgc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <87mvqg92q1.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> <ln60x4vi1g.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87egbs904a.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> <lnwppku0qc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <8760x48x2b.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>>>>>> I was making a very broad generalization: the C language is designed to 
>>>>>> make it easy for the compiler to translate basic operations 
>>>>>> straightforwardly into simple machine codes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately it was an inaccurate and misleading generalization.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.  I think it's an accurate generalization.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple example, given:
>>>>
>>>>     int n;
>>>>     /* ... */
>>>>     n ++;
>>>>
>>>> a compiler must generate code that increments n if n's value is less
>>>> than INT_MAX, but has no requirements if n == INT_MAX (the behavior is
>>>> undefined).
>>>
>>> That’s the opposite of Barry’s generalization.  I don’t see how a
>>> counterexample to a proposition can support the argument that it’s an
>>> accurate generalization.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> You snipped this statement:
>>
>> | A major purpose of leaving the behavior of INT_MAX + 1 undefined is to
>> | permit `n ++` to be implemented as a simple increment instruction.
>>
>> which supports Barry's "generalization".
>
> It doesn’t matter what the purpose is.  If we’re making statements about
> the semantics of C programs, what that matters is the requirements in
> the language specification.

Both matter.  Barry's comment was about the rationale behind the
requirements.  I find it useful to understand why the requirements are
as they are.

If you don't care about the purpose, that's fine -- but you said that
Barry's comment was incorrect, not that it's irrelevant.

>> The fact that, in this case, INT_MAX+1 has undefined behavior *permits*
>> compilers to generate simple straightforward code. It also permits
>> compilers to do arbitrarily fancy things to handle the exceptional case
>> where n==INT_MAX.
>
> The last sentence is the bit that contradicts the generalization.  It
> does indeed permit the use of a simple increment instruction, but it
> also permits *any other outcome* for the n==INT_MAX case.
>
> “This International Standard imposes no requirements” doesn’t mean “do
> the fastest thing” or “use the most convenient CPU instruction”, or
> anything else like that.  It just means no requirements.

Of course I'm perfectly well aware of all that.

Again, here's Barry's remark:

>>>>>> I was making a very broad generalization: the C language is designed to 
>>>>>> make it easy for the compiler to translate basic operations 
>>>>>> straightforwardly into simple machine codes.

If his statement included the word "only" after "designed", I would
understand and agree with your objection.  I think he's merely saying
(and I agree) that the ability to generate straightforward machine code
is *one* of the reasons for the current design.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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