Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: size of |
| Date | 2013-08-29 11:38 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnfvtsfikw.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <kfnk3j8gn1t.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnhaecjbi6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kfnd2ozf2nh.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <lnioyqhkns.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <kfn7gf4eubm.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
[...]
>>>> Consider a hypothetical change to the C standard:
>>>>
>>>> - calloc() is required to return a null pointer if the mathematical
>>>> product of its arguments exceeds SIZE_MAX
>>>
>>> This would impose an additional restriction on implementations.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I don't see that it has much value. Anyone who wants this
>>> behavior can easily get it just by using a wrapper function
>>> around calls to calloc(); a test for the stated condition is
>>> very easy to write.
>>>
>>>> - Any attempt to create an object whose size exceeds SIZE_MAX bytes
>>>> has undefined behavior (perhaps with "Recommended practice" to
>>>> diagnose such attempts at compile time if possible).
>>>
>>> This change actually would give implementations more freedom, not
>>> less. Consider the following code:
>>>
>>> /* SIZE_MAX is 65535 */
>>> char lots_o_bytes[ 100000 ];
>>>
>>> Under the current rules, if an implementation accepted this code
>>> it is obliged to create an array with 100,000 bytes in it. Under
>>> the proposed modification, an implementation could accept this
>>> code and then do whatever it wanted. I think having the behavior
>>> defined is better than having it undefined.
>>
>> Add a requirement that any attempt to create an object whose size
>> can be determined at compile time to exceed SIZE_MAX bytes is a
>> constraint violation. (Getting the wording for that just right may
>> be non-trivial).
>>
>>>> I believe that such a change would be an improvement.
>>>> [snip elaboration]
>>>
>>> I expect you would advance a somewhat different proposal
>>> after considering the above, so I will wait for that.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> You do realize that you revised your suggestion and then
> said you don't want to give a revised suggestion? :)
Yeah, ok -- but it was a fairly minor tweak.
>> The gist of what I'm suggesting isn't about forbidding large objects
>> (though that's how it's phrased). It's about requiring size_t to be
>> big enough to hold the size of any supported object.
>
> Practically speaking it's impossible to separate the two.
Logically speaking, they're equivalent. Practically speaking, my point
is that implementations should meet the new requirement (if they don't
already) not by adding new error cases for huge objects, but by making
size_t bigger. And of course most, perhaps all, existing
implementations won't have to do anything.
It's similar, in a way, to the post-C99 DR that required all-bits-zero
to be a representation of 0 for all integer types. No implementations
had to change to meet the new requirement, but it meant one less thing
for overly pedantic programmers to worry about.
>> As Robert Wessel recently pointed out, C++ explicitly requires this:
>>
>> The type size_t is an implementation-defined unsigned integer
>> type that is large enough to contain the size in bytes of any
>> object.
>>
>> This appears in C++11, not in C++03. Of course C doesn't have to
>> follow C++'s lead, but this does provide some precedent for the
>> idea.
>
> The C++ committee is living in fantasy land. Language
> implementations don't have control over the environments
> in which they are run. It's silly to suppose that they
> do.
It's not about controlling the environment. It's about making size_t, a
type defined by each C implementation, big enough to represent the size
of any supported object.
>> In C as it's currently defined, `sizeof obj` is not 100% reliable;
>> an implementation *might* make obj bigger than SIZE_MAX bytes. Most
>> C programmers probably aren't aware of this, and blithely assume
>> that sizeof is reliable. And they're right for most, or very likely
>> all, existing implementations. I'd like to make that guarantee more
>> explicit (by denying implementers the freedom to violate it).
>
> I understand what it is you hope to achieve, but what you're
> proposing is a poor way to try to do that.
>
>>>> A possible counterargument to this might be a system with a 32-bit
>>>> size_t that *can* support objects bigger than 2**32 bytes, but on
>>>> which very few programs attempt to create such objects -- and
>>>> where expanding size_t to 64 bits would impose a significant cost
>>>> on all programs, even those that don't attempt to create huge
>>>> objects.
>>>
>>> Yes, considerations along these lines are more or less the
>>> point of what I've been trying to say.
>>>
>>>> Are there such systems?
>>>
>>> The important question isn't whether such systems exist, but do
>>> we want to leave open the possibility that such implementations
>>> may be written and still be conforming. I believe the answer to
>>> that question is 'yes'.
>>
>> There's a competing consideration: making sizeof as reliable as most
>> C programmers already assume it is
>
> This statement assumes that adding a mandatory diagnostic (or the
> moral equivalent) is the only (or perhaps best) way to do that. To
> all indications sizeof IS as reliable as most C programmers assume
> it is. Even assuming there is a problem that needs to be addressed
> (which personally I don't think there is, but never mind that),
> there are better ways to go about solving it than giving in to the
> knee-jerk reaction of adding a constraint violation.
If sizeof is as reliable as most C programmers assume it is, why
shouldn't the standard guarantee it? If there's a perceived need to
allow future implementations to support objects bigger than SIZE_MAX
bytes (i.e., not to bother making size_t wider), then sizeof *isn't*
reliable; anyone writing code that applies sizeof to arbitrary types and
expressions, in principle, has to think about the possibility that it
might fail.
>> -- and, I strongly suspect, as
>> the authors of the standard intended it to be.
>>
>> As evidence for that intent, see N1570 7.19p4:
>>
>> Recommended practice
>>
>> The types used for size_t and ptrdiff_t should not have an
>> integer conversion rank greater than that of signed long int
>> unless the implementation supports objects large enough to
>> make this necessary.
>>
>> If objects bigger than SIZE_MAX bytes are permitted, then it's
>> never absolutely necessary to make size_t wider than long.
>
> This is a possible interpretation, but there are other ways of
> reading the quoted statement - for example:
>
> ... unless the implementation supports objects large enough to
> make this necessary /to deal with those objects effectively/.
>
> ... unless the implementation supports objects large enough to
> make this necessary /to meet the implementation's other goals
> and external requirements/.
>
> I don't see any reason to suppose that the quoted paragraph is
> about intent, as opposed to for example expectation, or one of
> the other readings. And it seems pretty unlikely that not
> requiring a diagnostic for such cases happened because of an
> oversight, because it's an obvious thing to check for, and easy
> to understand. So if there was intent it seems more likely that
> the intent was the same as what currently seems to be true,
> namely, that implementations normally would enforce a limit
> on declared object size, but that was left as a QOI matter
> rather than being explicitly called out.
Adding new constraint violations for objects that exceed SIZE_MAX bytes
<EDITORIAL>because the implementers didn't bother making size_t big
enough</EDITORIAL> is about catching errors as early as possible.
--
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.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
size of Raj Pashwar <raj121190@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2013-08-13 18:43 +0000
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-13 13:46 -0500
Re: size of Raj Pashwar <raj121190@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2013-08-16 22:06 +0000
Re: size of Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> - 2013-08-16 17:32 -0500
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-16 18:10 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-16 17:11 -0700
Re: size of Raj Pashwar <raj121190@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2013-08-17 09:11 +0000
Re: size of Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2013-08-17 05:38 -0400
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-17 09:00 -0400
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-16 21:43 -0400
Re: size of Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-08-16 22:36 -0400
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-17 03:08 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-17 08:57 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-17 13:35 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-17 15:17 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-17 17:06 -0700
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-17 18:27 -0400
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-21 00:29 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-21 02:03 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-23 10:27 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-23 10:38 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 17:25 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-26 20:20 -0700
Re: size of gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2013-08-21 16:05 +0000
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-23 10:26 -0700
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-21 12:20 -0600
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-13 11:50 -0700
Re: size of Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-13 21:52 +0000
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-13 15:49 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-14 08:22 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-14 10:38 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-14 20:20 +0000
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-14 14:57 -0700
Re: size of Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2013-08-15 10:14 -0400
Re: size of Azazel <azazel@remove.azazel.net> - 2013-08-15 10:11 -0500
Re: size of Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2013-08-16 13:13 -0400
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-15 08:54 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-16 16:03 +0000
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-16 14:36 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-16 17:42 -0400
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-17 04:50 +0000
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-17 03:21 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-17 09:33 -0500
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-17 07:58 -0700
Re: size of Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-17 20:17 +0100
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-18 09:22 +0200
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-19 20:42 -0500
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-20 09:03 +0200
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-20 09:06 +0200
Re: size of Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-20 20:49 +1200
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-20 10:57 +0200
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-20 12:40 +0200
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 07:58 -0500
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-20 18:27 +0200
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 12:27 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 12:20 -0700
Re: size of Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-20 21:02 +0000
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 16:10 -0700
Re: size of Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-23 10:50 +0300
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-21 07:39 +0200
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 13:15 -0500
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-20 15:17 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 16:18 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 20:47 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-20 23:31 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 23:38 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-21 07:01 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 21:54 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 00:26 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 04:45 -0500
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-24 08:55 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 11:54 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 13:27 -0400
Re: size of Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-24 14:12 -0500
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-24 18:01 -0400
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 01:46 +0000
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 13:23 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 14:33 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 22:47 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-25 04:34 -0500
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 01:49 +0000
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-21 09:04 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 23:07 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-21 07:06 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-21 09:06 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 23:03 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 13:34 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-22 15:06 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 14:42 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-22 12:40 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-22 14:57 -0700
Re: size of Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-22 20:30 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-22 22:24 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 21:42 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 00:10 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-22 21:36 -0500
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 14:53 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-22 23:30 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 10:48 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 14:23 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:42 -0700
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-24 20:09 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 17:52 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 22:53 -0400
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-25 08:44 -0400
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 14:27 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-26 15:35 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 16:08 -0700
Re: size of Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-27 12:29 -0500
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 10:45 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 14:46 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 02:10 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-29 11:38 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-01 09:43 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-09-01 16:14 -0700
Re: size of Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-09-02 11:42 +1200
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-09-01 20:32 -0400
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-03 08:13 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-09-03 08:31 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-22 10:35 -0700
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-26 23:48 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 21:50 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 06:46 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 08:39 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 14:10 -0700
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 21:46 +0000
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 10:15 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-28 17:09 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 10:43 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-25 10:49 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-25 11:15 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 14:39 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-25 18:32 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 19:48 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 01:19 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 12:34 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-21 00:19 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 18:28 -0500
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-20 22:02 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 23:13 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 08:48 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 14:12 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 20:35 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 09:16 -0700
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-24 15:14 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:51 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 19:39 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 11:48 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-24 14:24 -0500
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-24 15:14 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:46 -0700
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-24 21:42 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 01:41 -0700
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-25 13:46 -0600
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-25 18:18 -0600
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 18:27 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-26 21:21 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 00:55 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 08:27 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 18:43 -0700
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-25 16:52 -0400
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-25 18:34 -0400
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-25 16:20 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-25 21:01 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 19:33 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 23:36 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 09:15 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 00:36 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-29 11:27 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-31 21:42 -0700
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-24 23:08 -0400
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-25 13:44 -0600
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 13:31 -0700
Re: size of Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2013-08-25 16:20 -0700
Re: size of Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2013-08-25 21:48 -0400
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 19:30 -0700
Re: size of Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-26 14:45 +1200
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 20:08 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 18:53 -0700
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-26 22:08 -0600
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 23:13 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 08:47 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-28 23:54 -0700
Re: size of Rosario1903 <Rosario@invalid.invalid> - 2013-08-27 09:18 +0200
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 09:46 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 15:08 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-24 16:39 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 17:48 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 17:55 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-20 01:02 -0700
Re: size of Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-20 20:54 +1200
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-20 02:39 -0700
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-20 08:15 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 08:17 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-20 13:58 -0700
Re: size of Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2013-08-20 21:11 +0000
Re: size of gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2013-08-20 21:21 +0000
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-20 16:21 -0600
Re: size of gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2013-08-21 12:01 +0000
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-21 12:11 -0600
Re: size of gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2013-08-22 09:19 +0000
Re: size of Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-08-21 10:07 +1200
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-20 23:58 +0000
Re: size of Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-23 11:24 +0300
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-23 10:52 +0000
Re: size of "James Harris" <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2013-08-23 12:09 +0100
Re: size of Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-23 17:52 +0300
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-20 16:21 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-21 02:23 -0700
Re: size of glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-21 10:05 +0000
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-21 03:23 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-21 08:22 -0700
Re: size of Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-21 18:54 +0100
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-21 13:51 -0700
Re: size of Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-08-21 13:41 -0500
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-21 08:42 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-20 20:44 -0700
Re: size of Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2013-08-21 02:30 -0700
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-21 08:30 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-18 22:15 -0700
Re: size of Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2013-08-18 22:08 -0700
Re: size of Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-18 20:49 -0700
Re: size of Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2013-08-14 01:09 +0200
Re: size of Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-13 17:31 -0700
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-13 22:09 -0600
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-14 07:03 -0400
Re: size of Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2013-08-14 10:02 -0600
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-14 12:29 -0400
Re: size of Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2013-08-14 14:44 -0500
Re: size of James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-14 16:03 -0400
csiph-web