Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #7964
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.unix.programmer, comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Odd compiler behaviour? |
| Date | 2016-03-01 08:45 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lny4a2w3iz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | <nb3t47$19o6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20160301061135.783@kylheku.com> <nb49gp$2ha$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
spud@potato.field writes:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:15:16 +0000 (UTC)
> Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> wrote:
>>On 2016-03-01, spud@potato.field <spud@potato.field> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2016 13:03:56 +0000
>>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>Undefined. C99 6.5.7#4:
>>>
>>> That seems an odd decision to make. Its not undefined when you do an
>>> assembly left shift in most CPUs AFAIK - you get zero or a wrap if
>>> you use a rotate -
>>so
>>
>>Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it?
>>
>>It's well-defined for each of the instruction sets (that you know)
>>*individually*, but not for assembly language as such.
>
> Ok, but why not just define it anyway to give a certain result
> irrespective of what various CPUs do for the sake of portability?
For one thing, because specifying one particular behavior would require
compilers to generate inefficient code even for cases with well-defined
behavior.
Suppose x is a 32-bit unsigned integer, and y has a value in the range
0..31 but the compiler is unable to prove it. The current definition
(leaving x<<32 undefined) lets the compiler implement x<<y with a single
shift instruction. Requiring x<<32 to yield some specific value would
require extra code for target systems where the shift instruction yields
a different result.
> C data types are
> defined to be a specific size and have a specific range regardless of
> whether all possible processors support them natively so I don't see
> why it couldn't be done for this.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Type int, for example, has
a specific size and range for each implementation, but it varies
across implementations. It's required to have a range of at least
-32767..+32767.
--
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
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