Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #386690
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain |
| Date | 2024-07-01 12:14 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <864j98diw3.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <v5eph4$1k6a9$1@dont-email.me> <87ed8jnbmf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me> <867ceadtih.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240701200924.00003d9a@yahoo.com> |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:23:50 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 26/06/2024 13:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> I /do/ use Python. I use it when it is an appropriate language
>>>>>> to use, which is very different circumstances from when I use C
>>>>>> (or C++). Different tools for different tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet neither of you are interested in answering my question,
>>>>> which was why its simplistic bytecode compiler is acceptable in
>>>>> this scenario, but would be considered useless if applied to C
>>>>> code.
>>>>
>>>> You throw out a lot of these sorts of question, by which I mean
>>>> questions that you either /do/ know the answers to or which you
>>>> /should/ know the answers to.
>>>>
>>>> If a software engineering student asked me this sort of "challenge"
>>>> question it would immediately become homework: come up with at
>>>> least two scenarios in which a simplistic C bytecode compiler
>>>> would be an unacceptable tool to use, and two in which Python with
>>>> a trivial bytecode compiler would be an acceptable tool to use.
>>>> In each case explain why. Anyone who could not would get marked
>>>> down on the course.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you're implying here.
>>>
>>> Some here are consistently saying that any compiler whose internal
>>> processes are not at the scale or depth that you find in
>>> professional', 'industrial scale' products like gcc, clang, icc, is
>>> not worth bothering with and is basically a useless toy.
>>
>> After reading the above I decided to try tcc. I used tcc for
>> the first time earlier today.
>>
>> First I tried using tcc for my most recent project. That
>> didn't go anywhere, because that project relies on C11,
>> and tcc doesn't support C11.
>>
>> Next I tried using tcc on a small part of my larger current
>> project. That test involves compiling one .c file to produce a
>> .o file, and linking with several other .o files to produce an
>> executable, and running the executable. The .c file being
>> compiled uses C99 and doesn't need C11.
>>
>> The first thing that came up is tcc doesn't support all of
>> C99. There are some C99 features that tcc just doesn't
>> understand. In this case the infringements were minor so I
>> edited the source to work around the missing features.
>>
>> The second thing to come up is some language incompatibilities.
>> There are language features that tcc understands, sort of,
>> but implements them in a way that didn't work with my source
>> code. To be fair, a case could be made that what tcc does
>> conforms to the C standard. However, the code I had before
>> works fine with gcc and clang, and doesn't with tcc. Here
>> again the changes needed were minor so I edited the source
>> to work around the problem.
>>
>> The third thing to come up was the link step. Compiling the
>> one .c file with tcc -- and there are three other .o files
>> produced using gcc -- implicated the link step, which needed
>> to be done with tcc to avoid some undefined symbols. That
>> kind of surprised me; I'm used to being able to mix gcc
>> object files and clang object files with no difficulty,
>> so having the link step fail caught me off guard.
>>
>> After taking care of all that the build did manage to produce an
>> executable, which appears to have run successfully.
>>
>> After doing a trial run with the produced executable, I looked at
>> the tcc man page. As best I can tell, tcc simply silently
>> ignores the -fPIC option. (I didn't test that, I only read what
>> the tcc man page says.) That project absolutely relies on -fPIC,
>> so if tcc doesn't support it that's a deal breaker.
>>
>> Not offering any conclusion. Just reporting my experience.
>
> I tried tcc too.
>
> 1. It is easy to download. It does not need installation apart from
> unzip.
I installed tcc on linux by using apt-get. Worked with no problem.
> 2. It is very fast. Even when used from makefile, which is not an
> optimal mode of use, in my tests more than 3 times faster than MSVC in
> non-parallel build and more that twice faster in parallel build on
> quad-core CPU. And that on project that spends unproportionally long
> time in link. I am ready to believe that on more typical projects
> (i.e. more compile time, less link time) the difference would be over
> 5x.
> For the record, on this project 'gcc -O2' was ~1.7x slower than 'MSVC
> -O2' and 'gcc -O0' was ~1.1x slower than 'MSVC -O2'; the later
> difference probably because somewhat faster compilation by 'gcc -O0' was
> outdone by much slower link.
>
> 3. Exe is slow, but not slower than gcc -O0. About the same. In this
> particular test it meant ~2.5 times slower than optimized gcc or MSVC
> binary.
I didn't measure the speed either of the compiler or the
executable. Apparently tcc doesn't understand -S to produce
assembly.
> 4. In this particular project I encountered few inconvenient
> incompatibilities:
> 4.1. no support for %zd and %zu. May be, Linux version is better in that
> regard?
I tried %zu in tcc on linux and it worked fine.
> 4.2. Code like below does not compile. I don't know whether it is legal
> 'C' or not,
> but gcc, clang and MSVC compilers accept it o.k.
> label:int bar;
Putting a label on a declaration is not supported in either C99
or C11. Maybe those other compilers are using a later version of
C or compiler extensions. Did you use a -std=c?? option, along
with -pedantic? I used -std=c99 -pedantic. tcc accepts -std=c11
but it seems to make no difference to what is accepted.
> 4.3. c11/c17 things that are supported even by MSVC, which is generally
> does not claim full C11 support:
> _Alignof()
Support issues that came up in my tests:
1. tcc doesn't understand _Generic at all. That is in keeping
with tcc claiming to be for C99, since _Generic was added
in C11.
2. tcc doesn't understand the simplest form of variably
modified types, such as
int foo( int n, unsigned v[n] );
3. A tcc header for <stdarg.h> does give a macro definition
for va_end(), but it is not as robust as one would like.
> It's close to advertised, i.e. it is not C17, but has few features of
> C17.
I didn't make any effort to do exhaustive testing. I simply
grabbed some C source files I had lying around and tried to
compile (and later link) them with tcc.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-20 21:21 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-21 11:46 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-21 11:42 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-21 15:34 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-21 22:47 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-23 14:25 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-23 19:21 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-23 22:09 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 00:52 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 01:25 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 00:56 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 10:28 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 12:17 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 14:01 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-26 11:54 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 10:16 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 16:09 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 15:00 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 17:09 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 17:19 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-24 19:15 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 17:25 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 20:29 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 22:15 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 21:34 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 22:03 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 10:19 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 12:18 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 17:08 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-26 00:28 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:17 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-06-25 12:52 -0400
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 20:39 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 -0400
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-26 00:23 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:23 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 15:18 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 15:45 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:04 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:21 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-26 08:31 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-25 13:15 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 12:56 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 18:10 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 17:51 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 17:02 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 18:50 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-24 18:10 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-24 20:33 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 13:48 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 15:56 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 15:08 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 17:12 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 16:27 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-25 19:51 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-25 18:11 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-26 00:42 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 09:35 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-26 13:15 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 12:16 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-27 15:24 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 14:13 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-27 14:31 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 17:28 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-27 21:51 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-27 22:47 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 03:23 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:19 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 10:26 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 15:14 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-29 08:38 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 17:11 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 19:42 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-29 21:49 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:43 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-30 01:43 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:23 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-30 00:36 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-03 17:12 -0400
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-30 01:49 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-29 18:46 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 20:55 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-30 12:18 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 17:54 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-30 19:10 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-01 00:20 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-08 19:48 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 16:23 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 10:47 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-29 12:11 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:05 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-30 11:48 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 17:47 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-01 12:22 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-01 13:09 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-01 15:14 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 14:20 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 16:00 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 16:44 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 00:58 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 01:23 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-07-03 01:18 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 01:54 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-03 09:08 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 10:36 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-07-03 09:41 -0400
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-03 17:58 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 21:33 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-04 09:14 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-03 22:58 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-04 10:24 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-07-04 10:18 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 11:23 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-03 13:13 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-28 06:56 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 11:20 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:52 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 11:05 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-29 09:15 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-29 19:11 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-29 18:51 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-29 21:56 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-30 11:17 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:05 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-28 06:57 +0200
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 13:23 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 15:44 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 17:50 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 00:16 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-27 23:58 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 18:21 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:15 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:53 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-06-27 18:08 -0700
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-06-28 03:30 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 11:11 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 11:41 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 13:48 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 15:36 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 15:48 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 20:37 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-06-28 15:42 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-06-28 16:01 +0000
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 19:45 +0300
tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-01 20:09 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-01 12:14 -0700
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 14:48 -0700
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 15:09 -0700
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 11:54 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 12:22 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 16:27 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2024-07-02 15:18 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 17:55 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 13:57 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-02 06:50 -0700
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-07-02 06:47 -0700
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-07-02 11:50 -0400
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 10:35 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-07-02 14:33 +0000
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 15:43 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 18:17 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 16:32 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 18:45 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-07-02 17:12 +0100
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 00:42 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-04 00:04 +0300
Re: tcc - first impression. Was: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-03 21:07 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-27 23:24 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2024-06-28 00:44 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-24 20:41 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-06-28 19:39 +0300
Re: Baby X is bor nagain Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-06-26 11:31 +0100
Re: Baby X is bor nagain David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-06-26 16:43 +0200
csiph-web