Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #399438
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed |
| Date | 2026-05-26 14:09 +0000 |
| Organization | PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC |
| Message-ID | <10v49ic$3fq$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink) |
| References | <10uapjs$19723$1@dont-email.me> <10uprpn$1hfpm$1@dont-email.me> <10uvic7$63b$1@reader1.panix.com> <10v17h4$18mp3$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <10v17h4$18mp3$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 24/05/2026 21:08, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <10uprpn$1hfpm$1@dont-email.me>,
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> People do sometimes write C code that
>>> knowingly depends on undefined behaviour, because it makes their results
>>> more efficient and "it worked when I tested it".
>>
>> Yes, or they force some knob on their compiler into the required
>> position to give them guaranteed results. Linux does this, for
>> example; last time I worked in it, Google's massive (2BLOC) code
>> base similarly.
>
>What you then get is code that is UB in C, but not UB in
>C-with-no-strict-aliasing, or whatever "augmented" language you pick.
Yes. An observation pointed out to me at my last gig, and that
I now point out occasionally myself, is that Linux (for example)
is not so much written in C but rather in Linux C, which is the
dialect of the language defined by the compilers they use and
the specific behaviors they force using flags, pragmas, etc, for
those compilers. At any rate, it's certainly not strictly
conforming ISO C: is _any_ large program strictly conforming at
this point? I suspect many projects strive for such, but few
actually attain it.
>(I have a strict policy of putting any such knobs in "GCC optimize"
>pragmas, so that the code correctness does not depend on the flags
>picked in a makefile. Of course such code remains equally limited in
>its portability.)
Good idea, though I like the idea of the compiler failing with a
usage error if an option is no longer available (or someone is
trying to build using an old compiler or what have you).
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Hmm. This reads less like an indictment of the idea of stronger
>>>> typing, but rather a failure to provide adequate abstractions in
>>>> the type system.
>>>
>>> It is not an indication of problems with stronger typing, but it is an
>>> indication that the restrictions inherent in the language and tools made
>>> them somewhat unsuitable for a lot of use-cases that fitted the hardware
>>> well. (Modern XMOS tools have changed significantly since those days,
>>> perhaps partly because of such issues.)
>>
>> Sure, but that's a failure of that system to provide good
>> abstractions: the system was not rich enough to provide the
>> functionality you needed or wanted.
>>
>> I think the central tension here is that the idea of a strong
>> type system that is also semantically rich is being conflated
>> with one that's highly restrictive. What I'm suggesting is that
>> the opposite is true.
>
>To be clear - the restrictions here were not part of the type system.
>The XC language did have some differences in typing from C, if I
>remember the details correctly - rather than C pointers it had
>references which could not be null. And that's fine.
>
>The restrictions were enforced by whole-program analysis. I think (and
>you are the Rust expert here, not me) that the Rust borrow checker is
>similar. The rules of the language specify aspects of what can and
>cannot be done with access to data, and these are enforced at a higher
>level than the main compilation. They are language rules, but not part
>of the type system.
Sorry, let me be clear here: the _language_ is not expressive
enough to provide the kinds of abstractions that would be useful
for the types of applications the hardware seems well-suited
for.
But the original context was types; my point was that a richer
langauge can provide the building blocks so that one can build a
safe abstraction around those kinds of behaviors, even if one
uses `unsafe` in the implementation of those abstractions.
This was meant in response to your earlier statement, that e.g.
performance might cause one to want to reach for `unsafe` to
work _around_ the language; my point is that the language gives
you tools to work _with_ it. That is, the initial desire to
reach for `unsafe` is _reduced_ by the ability to effectively
hide it.
Implicit in this is a distinction between building what one
might call infrastructure within one's program, and using that
infrastructure: the former might involve some controlled (and
hopefully limited) use of `unsafe`, while the latter ideally
does not. I find this is the opposite of what many people
assume when coming from other language backgrounds, where the
desire is to push `unsafe` to the point of use; often this is
because in other languages, building up those abstractions
requires a lot of machinery with high runtime costs.
>> [snip]
>> Not really. The rule is that borrowing a mutable reference to
>> some object is mutually exclusive with borrowing any other kind
>> of reference to that same object at the same time. `unsafe`
>> doesn't change that rules, or let the programmer off the hook
>> for violating it: `unsafe` code isn't allowed to mix mut ref
>> with other references any more than _safe_ code. All `unsafe`
>> means is that the burden of upholding the rules of the language
>> falls to the programmer, without compiler assistence, because
>> the programmer knows something that the compiler does not (and
>> probably cannot) for some reason.
>
>That is roughly what I was trying to express, although there is perhaps
>a grey area between "I am following the rules even though the tools
>can't see it" and "I am breaking the rules but I know it is safe to do
>so here without compromising the reason for those rules".
That's what I'm saying; a program really _doesn't_ get to break
the rules and retain any guarantee of behavior, unsafe or not.
In that sense, writing `unsafe` Rust code is _harder_ than
writing C or another unsafe language. There is no grey area:
either the programmer makes sure the program follows the rules,
or all bets are off.
>In C (trying desperately to bring us back to c.l.c. :-) ), you might use
>casts to do something that looks wrong to the compiler, but which you
>know is safe and correct.
That's qualitatively different, though. If, say, I manually
validate that a pointer points to valid memory, and is properly
aligned, and so forth, then I can cast that pointer to some
type. You can absolutely do that in Rust, too. But if,
instead, you say, "I'm going to intentionally invoke UB here..."
then both languages will bite you.
>> However, if it really _is_ the case that multiple simultaneous
>> writes are ok, the ability to create new types and assign them
>> semantics and behavior menas that a programmer can build a _new_
>> abstraction that lets them do something similar. Atomics are
>> an interesting case in point: one can store to them using a
>> non-mutable reference: while this seems counter-intuitive at
>> first, it sort of makes sense for the same reason that a `Mutex`
>> is accessed via an immutable reference: one cannot observe an
>> atomic in an intermediate state due to an update, and `load` and
>> `store` are explicit operations (in practice, the compiler
>> lowers those to single load/store operations and whatever
>> barriers are appropriate for the target architecture).
>
>OK. Though that is probably a level of detail that would be clearer to
>me if I read the Rust documentation first!
>
>> A hardware device modeling a framebuffer might be another case;
>> those are output-only devices, and there's no reason that two
>> threads cannot write to different parts of the buffer at the
>> same time, but given a suitable interface, the interface doesn't
>> need to expose unsafety. And if you've got a rich type system,
>> you have the rules to build that interface.
>
>That is the kind of thing that was difficult in XC. Perhaps it would be
>fair to say that its type system was not powerful enough to work
>conveniently with its data race and thread safety checking systems.
Yes. It also doesn't give you any means to build an abstraction
that lets you do the thing you want to do.
>>> That does not mean that a language should not try to have such rules,
>>> and enforce them at compile time - far from it. The aim should be that
>>> as much code as possible is correct, or at least immune to particular
>>> classes of bugs, checked by the compiler and tools.
>>
>> I think you're saying something different than what I'm saying;
>> my point is that the safe interface shouldn't be seen as a
>> burden and, if well-executed, it shouldn't add a runtime tax in
>> terms of reduced performance. You seem to be taking it as a
>> given that the rules of the language will make both of those
>> things true, however.
>
>I am saying that a safe interface /can/ sometimes be a burden - not that
>it has to be.
Well yes, of course; I thought that was a given in the context
of this discussion.
>An interface defines what can be done, and also what cannot be done.
>It's power as an interface comes from both of these - letting you do
>useful things, and preventing you from doing harmful things. Sometimes,
>however, there may be things you want to do that you know are useful and
>not harmful, but that the interface disallows. If the language or
>interface is well designed, and a good fit for the tasks people want to
>do with the language, then such situations will be minimal. But I think
>it is quite easy to fall into a trap when designing an interface where
>you exclude too many useful cases. If that happens, then programmers
>have to use riskier or less efficient workarounds, or find alternative
>interfaces (or languages).
Yes. And what I'm saying is that when working with a language
that allows you to create useful, robust, types, you can often
bridge the two worlds and build a new, useful abstraction. C is
not a language where one can easily do that; you've got structs,
unions, and functions...and that's about it. But you cannot
restrict the behavior of a struct in the way that King described
in the "Parse, Don't Validate" piece I linked earlier.
An instance of a struct is Not a proof that some property holds,
but it _may_ be in Rust or Haskell or OCaml, SML, etc. I
suspect one cannot easily do that in C++, because it's not
managed and doesn't make ownership a first-class property,
though one can usefully write a number of classes and so forth
that give much the same effect, if not actual guarantees.
Interestingly (maybe?), I find Ada lacking in this area.
>As a concrete example, I recently wanted to use a std::variant<> in my
>C++ code. A std::variant<> is, approximately, a struct like :
>
> struct {
> enum { ... } type_tag;
> union { ... } contents;
> }
>
>In C++, this is all type-safe - you don't have direct access to these
>fields, but instead they are kept consistent automatically so that
>objects of different types can be stored in the union and have their
>constructors and destructors called correctly. But in my case, I wanted
>to access the fields independently - I wanted to fill the "contents"
>with data retrieved over a network, and set the "type_tag" according to
>other data in the network packet. I knew this was safe (since no
>constructors or destructors were needed). But there was no way to
>handle this within the interface. My options included a risky,
>non-portable and difficult workaround (digging through the <variant>
>header and directly "hacking" the variant object using unsigned char*
>pointers), serious run-time inefficiencies (with extra copies of the
>data), or finding a different interface. I opted for the last one,
>making my own simple variation of std::variant that gave me the access I
>needed.
>
>This, of course, does not necessarily mean the interface of
>std::variant<> is bad. If my needs were highly unusual, then a standard
>library does not need to support them. But it is an example where the
>restrictions imposed by a safe, powerful interface limited how I could
>work with what is essentially the same kind of object.
Well, sure, that's the danger of general libraries: you're
getting something that is a decent combination of functionality
and expressiveness contrasted with safety for many needs, but
(almost by definition) not for all needs. As you point out,
that is useful for many cases, though.
>>>> At first glance it appears that it must suffer from the same
>>>> drawbacks as `XC`, which you mentioned above. Except that the
>>>> language does provide controlled ways to share data
>>>> concurrently.
>>>>
>>>> Using the _unsafe_ subset, there is one place where it is
>>>> permitted to have multiple, mutable references to an object: the
>>>> `UnsafeCell`. This gives Rust interior mutability, which means
>>>> that you can build safe abstractions for data sharing, like
>>>> `Mutex` types that own the data they protect.
>>>
>>> If "unsafe" gives enough, but is rarely needed in most code, then it
>>> sounds like a good balance.
>>
>> Yes. And moreover, one can hide that unsafety behind a safe
>> interface.
>
>I do like that the unsafety is marked explicitly and clearly.
It goes beyond that, though: _if_ the programmer is successful
in providing a safe abstraction around the unsafety, then it is
impossible to compromise the memory safety of the program by
using that abstraction. Naturally, "if" is doing a lot of work
here: as I said, the burden for writing `unsafe` code is higher
in Rust than it is in C, and it requires a lot of care. But the
resulting guarantees are much stronger.
- Dan C.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 00:03 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-17 01:08 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-16 18:21 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-17 12:16 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 15:04 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 15:08 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-17 06:48 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-05-17 14:43 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-17 16:53 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-17 17:56 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 21:07 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 08:56 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-18 09:22 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 10:35 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-18 10:41 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-05-18 16:47 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 18:58 +0200
Using "extra" blocks to declare local variables (Was: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-19 05:48 +0000
Re: Using "extra" blocks to declare local variables (Was: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 08:18 +0200
Re: Using "extra" blocks to declare local variables (Was: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-19 14:04 +0000
Re: Using "extra" blocks to declare local variables (Was: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-22 23:44 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-18 18:13 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-18 18:37 +0000
You are not allowed to use "the S word" in this ng. (Was: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-19 05:49 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 18:35 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 21:24 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 21:48 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-31 17:00 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 14:23 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 06:58 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 11:55 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:15 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 12:48 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 14:23 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 14:08 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 15:40 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 16:41 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 17:07 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 17:23 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 17:58 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 18:31 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 18:38 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 18:54 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 17:44 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 18:59 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 17:31 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 18:48 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 18:47 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 21:58 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-19 22:16 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-20 08:59 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-20 14:20 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-20 16:22 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-20 16:41 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-20 19:51 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-20 21:14 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 08:45 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 12:56 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 14:55 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 18:26 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 21:23 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 20:59 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-21 21:35 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 09:31 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 06:52 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 09:34 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 11:43 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 12:13 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 17:32 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 20:27 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-23 15:30 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 17:59 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 07:56 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 11:41 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 13:31 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 13:42 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 15:11 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 14:57 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-22 16:16 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 17:43 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-22 21:03 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 22:02 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-25 07:39 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 17:53 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 07:51 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 10:58 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 07:33 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-24 02:48 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-24 10:13 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-24 12:30 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-24 13:39 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:09 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-24 21:48 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-24 22:04 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-25 10:34 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 11:45 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 15:08 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 14:31 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-21 19:37 +0300
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 18:38 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-21 13:54 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 20:09 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 14:31 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-21 19:41 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 05:23 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-22 21:38 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 23:17 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 00:04 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 09:35 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 03:59 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-21 13:48 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 14:23 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 23:47 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 17:24 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 01:51 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-22 14:04 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 16:16 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 17:47 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 17:35 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-22 20:57 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 00:24 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-23 11:46 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 11:31 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-23 13:51 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 13:07 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 14:35 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 14:38 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 20:46 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-23 13:55 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 05:58 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 21:21 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 07:17 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 10:49 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 05:49 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-22 18:37 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-21 19:49 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 17:27 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 14:21 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 20:32 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 14:19 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 14:03 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 16:39 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-20 15:18 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-20 17:38 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-20 18:17 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 09:56 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-21 12:18 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 15:16 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-22 14:44 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-22 17:12 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-24 19:08 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-25 12:16 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-26 14:09 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-26 18:16 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-04 07:19 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-06-04 17:18 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-06-05 08:45 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-21 15:04 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 16:47 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-21 02:55 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 21:12 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-23 21:31 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-24 11:00 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-05-24 04:15 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-20 10:40 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 16:52 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-20 14:56 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-20 06:38 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 02:45 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 02:31 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-21 10:16 +0200
[OT] Genie bug and fix (was Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 04:48 +0200
Re: [OT] Genie bug and fix (was Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-22 05:02 +0200
Re: [OT] Genie bug and fix (was Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-22 11:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Genie bug and fix (was Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-23 09:21 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-20 06:24 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-20 11:55 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 02:30 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 02:21 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 18:51 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-21 11:46 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 14:56 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-21 15:12 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 16:47 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-05-21 19:27 +0300
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 20:03 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 19:42 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-21 19:46 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-21 20:08 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 14:34 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 15:01 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 15:15 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-20 09:24 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-20 03:26 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 13:29 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 16:46 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-05-19 13:56 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 14:27 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-19 12:35 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 11:57 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 13:57 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 14:18 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 16:07 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 14:12 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 07:17 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 23:30 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 09:02 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-18 09:38 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 10:50 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 10:00 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 16:31 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 09:18 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-19 10:00 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-19 10:34 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-19 14:19 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-05-20 04:09 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-05-19 11:43 -0400
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-18 01:22 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 11:23 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-05-18 11:07 +0000
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 14:10 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 15:01 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 14:33 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 16:39 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 16:12 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 17:35 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 16:59 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 16:25 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 17:50 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 18:21 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 17:29 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 17:04 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-18 16:31 +0100
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 18:12 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 18:24 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-05-18 14:40 -0700
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 14:57 +0200
Re: switch/extension for see below strongly needed fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 16:06 +0200
Re: multipass Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 05:50 +0000
Re: multipass Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-05-17 11:26 +0100
Re: multipass David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-05-18 09:08 +0200
Re: multipass Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 17:31 +0200
Re: multipass makendo <makendo@makendo.invalid> - 2026-05-24 01:14 +0800
Re: multipass Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-27 01:05 +0000
csiph-web