Re: Odd compiler behaviour?

From	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer
Subject	Re: Odd compiler behaviour?
Date	2016-03-10 19:51 +0000
Message-ID	<87k2lat8kh.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References	<nb3t47$19o6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nbmt79$127e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20160310073739.787@kylheku.com> <nbs64g$11q2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20160310141206.690dee00e1890c1c28ec7eed@speakeasy.net>

Show all headers | View raw

"James K. Lowden" <jklowden@speakeasy.net> writes:
> spud@potato.field wrote:
>
>> >It's overloaded; it's doing different kinds of addition.
>> >Without overloading, you need a different + operator for
>> >floating-point.
>> 
>> Its still addition! The meaning is identical!
>> 
>> The only reason overloading of the maths op is needed is because of
>> current CPU architecture. There is no conceptual difference.
>
> The difference has nothing to do with the CPU and everything to do with
> the language.  Please see abs(3) and fabs(3).  Two functions are needed
> because the arguments are of different *types*. That would be true even
> on a machine that implemented floating point in software.

But the arguments are of different types because of "CPU architectures"
supporting different 'kinds' of numbers with different properties and
representations. Which is at odd with the naive idea of 'arithmetic' as
something which is performed 'on numbers'. This usually includes (sums
of) decimal fractions in the common notation for that and usually
doesn't include complex numbers or other fractions.

> The operator + is a binary function.

'operator +' implementations in C++ are binary functions. But the C '+'
operator isn't. It's a special language construct which can appear in an
additive expression. If it does, it's supposed to have two
operands. Either both must 'have an arithmetic type', ie, be integers or
floats, or one must be a pointer and the other an integer. In order to
perform an arithmetic addition, the compiler is supposed to determine a
'common real type' for both operands. Both operands are
supposed to be converted to this common real type. The addition is then
performed with the results of these conversions.

Considering that the compiler is supposed to generate code based on the
types of the actual operands, the way to approximate this in C++ would
really rather be a template function with two template arguments. But
that's not good enough because the type of the return value depends on
the types of both arguments.

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