Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #124999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 529 — 48 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
“The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 23:18 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 18:30 +0800
Transpiling from Pascal to Rust (was: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us") ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-14 11:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "De ongekruisigde ds." <ongekruisigde-ds@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-14 11:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 19:59 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-14 07:35 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-14 11:57 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:07 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-10-14 14:04 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-14 19:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 05:55 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-14 22:11 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-14 20:42 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 21:43 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-15 11:22 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-10-15 10:40 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-18 09:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-18 10:34 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-19 06:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 15:44 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-19 20:09 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:10 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 18:08 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:10 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 18:57 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 05:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-20 18:46 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 13:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:27 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 18:14 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 14:22 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 18:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:06 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:20 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:54 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2026-11-02 11:11 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:06 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 13:35 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:32 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-21 03:31 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 04:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 10:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 14:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-10-21 15:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-21 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 11:05 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 20:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 14:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-22 04:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 07:37 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 12:17 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:40 -0400
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-02 10:58 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 19:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 19:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-21 03:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:09 +0800
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 12:43 +0100
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-06 16:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-20 23:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:49 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:15 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-20 20:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:36 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-21 16:11 +1300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:48 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 09:39 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:51 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 15:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 16:41 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 14:48 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 17:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-20 17:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 20:50 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 19:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:47 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 11:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 12:29 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 17:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 14:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:51 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 10:32 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:09 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:47 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: �The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 08:11 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-25 09:30 +0000
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:37 -0700
Re: The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 -0700
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jerry Brown <jerry@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> - 2026-10-26 07:59 +0000
Re: ?The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 10:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 20:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:49 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:20 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:53 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-24 12:07 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-10-25 08:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:32 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 08:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-25 19:06 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 22:54 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-26 08:29 +1100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-10-25 20:10 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-25 01:03 +1100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:08 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-23 23:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 17:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:04 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-24 21:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:48 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:42 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-23 18:24 +0000
Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-24 16:12 +1300
Re: Whilst All The Computer Experts are Visiting r.a.sf.w. Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 15:22 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:40 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 18:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:27 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:36 -0500
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-21 19:20 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:57 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 20:26 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 18:48 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 19:01 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:50 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-22 16:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 16:25 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 22:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:28 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-23 10:21 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-23 00:23 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 00:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 12:06 +0300
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 07:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:06 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-23 11:56 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 17:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 16:22 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:03 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:06 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-23 20:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 08:21 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-24 14:25 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-24 14:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:55 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:07 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 07:26 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-24 13:57 -0400
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:19 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 10:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:03 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:59 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:01 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 09:47 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:04 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-29 12:49 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 11:21 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:09 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:16 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:08 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 22:05 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:21 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 16:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-24 12:17 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-24 21:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 01:11 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 00:28 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 08:42 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-25 15:59 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:18 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 09:50 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-26 16:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-26 15:32 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:31 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 13:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 08:41 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2026-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:03 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:21 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:26 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 12:29 -0600
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 19:59 +0100
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-26 09:43 +1300
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-25 19:54 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:13 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 16:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 16:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-25 17:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:04 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:06 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 21:47 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:09 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 23:07 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-29 22:26 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 00:54 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 02:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 10:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-30 15:23 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 16:07 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-10-30 20:37 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 22:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-31 04:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-31 05:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:47 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-31 19:56 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 21:59 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-02 16:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:48 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 11:24 +0100
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-04 23:53 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-06 15:38 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-06 16:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-02 23:46 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:02 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:03 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-03 21:51 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-03 13:10 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 01:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-07 09:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-07 20:20 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-07 12:19 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-08 09:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:00 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:59 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 08:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:22 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 16:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 10:56 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-04 19:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> - 2026-11-04 14:17 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:24 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-01 19:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 15:06 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 02:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:09 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 21:11 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-03 07:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-06 19:22 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:45 +0000
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-31 09:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:11 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:03 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:44 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:34 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:14 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-01 08:34 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 18:04 -0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-11-02 15:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:33 -0800
Threads and processes (was: Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-25 23:48 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 22:56 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 17:22 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:59 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 14:41 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 16:16 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:12 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 22:40 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:44 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 08:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 00:06 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-29 16:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-29 22:39 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-29 15:13 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-29 22:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-30 02:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-30 11:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-30 11:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-02 06:17 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 14:54 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:05 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:45 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:44 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-27 09:06 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-27 10:22 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-27 10:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 15:03 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:34 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-25 15:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:20 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:37 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-25 22:24 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:01 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:42 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-25 18:17 +0000
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 09:57 +0000
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 03:53 -0700
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-26 14:44 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 08:56 -0700
Re: Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 16:19 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-26 11:46 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:19 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:19 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 09:09 +0000
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:10 -0700
Re: what's a process, was The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-10-26 13:36 -1000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:03 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:12 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-25 08:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:22 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-26 10:02 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 13:10 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-27 08:43 +1300
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-28 08:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-28 08:39 -0600
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 -0700
Threads and processes (Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-10-26 19:14 -0700
Re: Threads and processes (Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 06:08 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 22:44 +0300
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 15:41 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:21 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 22:31 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:48 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:30 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:34 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 10:11 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:55 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:38 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 12:55 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 16:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:00 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:51 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 05:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us” "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:36 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-23 21:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 05:14 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:49 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:31 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:07 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:36 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:02 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:14 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 16:22 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 09:15 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 18:15 +0800
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@caprica.universe - 2026-10-23 08:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 09:20 +0200
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:58 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:52 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:38 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-20 12:11 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 07:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 07:55 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-21 08:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-21 07:41 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:23 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon boltar@battlestar.co.uk - 2026-10-22 14:53 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-22 19:05 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-21 13:27 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:24 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 09:14 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 02:00 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 02:17 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 03:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 04:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 04:50 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 04:56 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 14:34 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-22 07:31 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 16:40 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-22 11:18 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 04:10 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 21:21 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-23 05:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:29 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 04:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 05:54 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 19:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 05:19 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-22 07:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 03:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 22:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 06:25 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 11:45 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:43 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:50 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:43 +0200
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-23 09:02 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 19:19 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:56 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:01 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 03:33 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 13:27 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:57 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:09 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:32 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:28 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:23 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:51 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 17:01 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:00 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 16:16 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 00:42 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:11 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:26 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:47 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 11:00 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 09:41 -0700
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-27 18:36 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 02:48 -0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-27 22:22 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 21:35 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-28 01:43 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-10-27 22:18 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-27 19:28 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 14:16 -0700
Re: Structured Programming (was Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us”) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-01 23:38 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 19:21 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 03:40 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:29 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:33 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 21:45 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:53 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-26 22:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:42 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 16:06 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-26 22:29 +0100
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 14:58 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 15:46 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-22 03:46 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 04:51 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-22 06:39 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-10-23 01:57 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-10-20 12:10 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:20 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-10-20 21:20 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:26 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:35 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:30 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:21 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:03 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 16:26 -0600
Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 19:01 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:09 -0700
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2026-10-14 08:52 -0400
Re: âThe end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 06:15 +0800
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:26 -0700
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:07 -0500
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-10-15 19:18 +0000
Re: The_end_of_software_secrecy_is_almost_upon_us Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 15:02 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-15 11:05 -0400
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-15 14:13 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Jay Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.me> - 2026-10-15 20:35 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 00:27 -0500
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" John Smith <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 05:04 +0000
Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon us" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2026-11-02 10:30 +0100
Page 16 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 27 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 13:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c5i7n$1dqbi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125513 |
On 10/31/2026 2:38 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 20:37:14 +0100
> Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> gabbled:
>> On 10/30/26 17:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 11:25:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:
>>>> In article <20261030105900.000020ce@yahoo.com>,
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Only if you intended to close the TTY the programs were started
>>>>>> on. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be necessary:
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens when caller is GUI-style application?
>>>>
>>>> That depends on a number of factors, but basically, "it does the
>>>> same thing". Why would it be any different?
>>>
>>> Windows treats GUI apps entirely differently to console ones so a
>>> Windows
>>> dev might not appreciate that on unix there is no demarcation - a GUI
>>> app
>>> simply has a network connection to the X server and it can either sit in
>>> an event loop waiting for events - as per a windows main thread - or
>>> go do
>>> other things and periodically check the X event list.
>>>
>>
>> That's where threads are useful: The GUI is one thread, and the "other
>> things" are in one or more other threads. There are altogether too many
>> programs that hang the GUI while "other things" are going on. That
>> should never happen!
>
> If its multithreaded but that still happens someone probably has created
> too
> many critical sections with too many locks.
>
Makes no sense at all. Have you taken a look at my multex? It can create
a shit lod of mutexes, and never deadlock. It keeps a strict locking
order. Sorts and dedups the mutexes. Also, notice that an object does
not need its own mutex:
So, I have the most recent version and coded up my old multex algo. It
100% dead lock free and allows a thread to locks multiple objects in any
order and lock them. All of the lock ordering is taken care of in the
finalize function. Basically a thread seeds its per thread lock indices
with addresses to objects it wants to lock. Calls finalize, then locks
them. Does its thing and then unlocks them. Fwiw, here is my Relacy test
output:
struct ct_multex_relacy_test_v000
65% (65536/100000)
iterations: 100000
total time: 9390
throughput: 10649
D:\ct_dev\ct_msvc\projects\ct_relacy_test\x64\Debug\ct_relacy_test.exe
(process 13356) exited with code 0 (0x0).
Press any key to close this window . . .
Any my code:
#include <relacy/relacy.hpp>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstddef>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#if ! defined (NDEBUG)
# define CT_DBG_PRINTF(e) std::printf e
#else
# define CT_DBG_PRINTF(e) ((void)0)
#endif
#define CT_THREADS (5)
#define CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N (64)
struct ct_mutex_table
{
rl::mutex m_mutexs[CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N];
std::size_t
hash_ptr(
void* p
) const {
return rl::hash_ptr(p, CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N);
}
};
struct ct_thread_mutex_hash
{
std::vector<std::size_t> m_hashed_idxs;
// must be before any locks!
void finalize()
{
std::sort(
m_hashed_idxs.begin(),
m_hashed_idxs.end());
m_hashed_idxs.erase(
std::unique(
m_hashed_idxs.begin(),
m_hashed_idxs.end()),
m_hashed_idxs.end());
}
// BEFORE WE CALL, WE NEED TO sort and dedup before this.
void
lock(
ct_mutex_table& mutex_table
) {
for (auto& mtx_idx : m_hashed_idxs)
{
rl::mutex& mtx = mutex_table.m_mutexs[mtx_idx];
mtx.lock($);
}
}
// does not really even need to be reversed...
void
unlock(
ct_mutex_table& mutex_table
) {
for (auto& mtx_idx : m_hashed_idxs)
{
rl::mutex& mtx = mutex_table.m_mutexs[mtx_idx];
mtx.unlock($);
}
}
};
struct ct_state
{
ct_mutex_table m_mutex_table;
VAR_T(int) m_var_0 = 0;
VAR_T(int) m_var_1 = 1;
VAR_T(int) m_var_2 = 2;
void worker_thread_a()
{
ct_thread_mutex_hash self_hash;
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_0));
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_1));
self_hash.finalize();
self_hash.lock(m_mutex_table);
VAR(m_var_0) = 42;
VAR(m_var_1) = 128;
self_hash.unlock(m_mutex_table);
}
void worker_thread_b()
{
ct_thread_mutex_hash self_hash;
// Seed!
{
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_1));
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_0));
}
// Okay... Finalize it...
{
self_hash.finalize();
}
// Finally, we can lock the bastard!
{
self_hash.lock(m_mutex_table);
{
VAR(m_var_0) = 99;
VAR(m_var_1) = 77;
}
self_hash.unlock(m_mutex_table);
}
}
};
struct ct_multex_relacy_test_v000
: rl::test_suite<ct_multex_relacy_test_v000, CT_THREADS>
{
ct_state m_state = { };
void before()
{
// not sure to init m_state here. Is it already init?
}
void
thread(
unsigned tidx
) {
if (tidx == 0)
m_state.worker_thread_a();
else
m_state.worker_thread_b();
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
{
rl::test_params p;
p.iteration_count = argc > 1 ? (unsigned)atoi(argv[1]) : 100000;
p.execution_depth_limit = 100000;
if (argc > 2) {
std::string m = argv[2];
if (m == "full") p.search_type = rl::sched_full;
else if (m == "bound") { p.search_type = rl::sched_bound;
p.context_bound = argc > 3 ? atoi(argv[3]) : 2; }
}
rl::simulate<ct_multex_relacy_test_v000>(p);
}
return 0;
}
/*
#include <relacy/relacy.hpp>
#include <iostream>
int
main()
{
std::cout << "ct_relacy_test\n";
std::cout << "____________________________________________" <<
std::endl;
{
}
std::cout << "____________________________________________" <<
std::endl;
std::cout << "ct_relacy_test fin! :^)\n";
return 0;
}
*/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 08:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c6tjf$3bvmg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125533 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:14:47 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 10/31/2026 2:38 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> If its multithreaded but that still happens someone probably has created >> too >> many critical sections with too many locks. >> > >Makes no sense at all. Have you taken a look at my multex? It can create WTF has your multex got to do with anything? No one was talking about your code so don't use this discussion as some excuse to show off some code you wrote than no one cares about. >a shit lod of mutexes, and never deadlock. It keeps a strict locking >order. Sorts and dedups the mutexes. Also, notice that an object does >not need its own mutex: Thats nice. tl;dr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 18:04 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11c8r2u$2g83t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125548 |
On 11/1/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:14:47 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> On 10/31/2026 2:38 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> If its multithreaded but that still happens someone probably has >>> created too >>> many critical sections with too many locks. >>> >> >> Makes no sense at all. Have you taken a look at my multex? It can create > > WTF has your multex got to do with anything? No one was talking about your > code so don't use this discussion as some excuse to show off some code you > wrote than no one cares about. It uses a table of a lot of mutexes. Never deadlocks. So, you need to study up? You said "too many critical sections with too many locks." Well, if you don't know how to use them, don't use them. Learn first? > >> a shit lod of mutexes, and never deadlock. It keeps a strict locking >> order. Sorts and dedups the mutexes. Also, notice that an object does >> not need its own mutex: > > Thats nice. > > tl;dr >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 15:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cab6p$3ffqq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125608 |
On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 18:04:13 -0800 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >On 11/1/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:14:47 -0700 >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >>> On 10/31/2026 2:38 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>> If its multithreaded but that still happens someone probably has >>>> created too >>>> many critical sections with too many locks. >>>> >>> >>> Makes no sense at all. Have you taken a look at my multex? It can create >> >> WTF has your multex got to do with anything? No one was talking about your >> code so don't use this discussion as some excuse to show off some code you >> wrote than no one cares about. > >It uses a table of a lot of mutexes. Never deadlocks. So, you need to >study up? You said "too many critical sections with too many locks." > >Well, if you don't know how to use them, don't use them. Learn first? I have no desire to spend hours trawling through someones pet project so they can make a point about what a L337 coder they are. HTH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-02 14:33 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11cb348$39igd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125624 |
On 11/2/2026 7:45 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2026 18:04:13 -0800 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >> On 11/1/2026 1:34 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 13:14:47 -0700 >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> gabbled: >>>> On 10/31/2026 2:38 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>>>> If its multithreaded but that still happens someone probably has >>>>> created too >>>>> many critical sections with too many locks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Makes no sense at all. Have you taken a look at my multex? It can >>>> create >>> >>> WTF has your multex got to do with anything? No one was talking about >>> your >>> code so don't use this discussion as some excuse to show off some >>> code you >>> wrote than no one cares about. >> >> It uses a table of a lot of mutexes. Never deadlocks. So, you need to >> study up? You said "too many critical sections with too many locks." >> >> Well, if you don't know how to use them, don't use them. Learn first? > > I have no desire to spend hours trawling through someones pet project so > they > can make a point about what a L337 coder they are. HTH. > The code is not all that complicated?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 23:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Threads and processes (was: Re: "The end of software secrecy is almost upon) |
| Message-ID | <11bm4gb$2av8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125339 |
On 2026-10-25, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>, <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote: >>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>>> [snip] >>> >>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is >>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle >>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that. >> >>You didn't answer my questions. >> >>What do you think that a "thread" is? >>What do you think that a "process" is? > > Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question. > Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens > of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both > I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you > need me to tell you. Well go do your own research. > > In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide > a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one? > > Take your time. It tends to be somewhat easy to get lost in misunderstandings even when using the very same language. So, if you're discussing threads and/or processes, explaining what do you mean by these two concepts at least ensures there's one less source of potential misunderstandings. With that in account, it's less than stellar not to answer. And then kind of pulling rank to do so... "Le langage est source de malentendus." -- Saint-Exupèry -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 22:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261025225619.000074a5@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125326 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:41:48 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: > >In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, > >>Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ > >>standard library? No it would not be. > >>The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... > > > >POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not > >just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and > >you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks > >for C++ [and C].) > > No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading > model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. Actually, implementing C++11 (or C11) threads fully in user space on pre-Vista Win32 (i.e. before addition of support for conditional variables to OS API) would be quite challenging. I don't know if anybody bothered. I think that it is possible, but if you want it robust then it (cond. variables) will cost you significant overhead relatively to "native" synchronization primitives. > There is no reason the same can't be done for processes and your > irrelevant waffle about past issues of threading on *nix don't change > that. > Dick-measuring competitions are integral part of Usenet tradition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-25 17:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bm6g4$3hjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125358 |
On 10/25/2026 1:56 PM, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:41:48 -0000 (UTC)
> boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC)
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:
>>> In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>,
>>>> Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++
>>>> standard library? No it would not be.
>>>> The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc...
>>>
>>> POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not
>>> just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and
>>> you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks
>>> for C++ [and C].)
>>
>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading
>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both.
>
> Actually, implementing C++11 (or C11) threads fully in user space on
> pre-Vista Win32 (i.e. before addition of support for conditional
> variables to OS API) would be quite challenging. I don't know if
> anybody bothered.
> I think that it is possible, but if you want it robust then it (cond.
> variables) will cost you significant overhead relatively to "native"
> synchronization primitives.
>
>> There is no reason the same can't be done for processes and your
>> irrelevant waffle about past issues of threading on *nix don't change
>> that.
>>
>
> Dick-measuring competitions are integral part of Usenet tradition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I tried to do a little something, no atomics, but, since I am able to
access comp.lang.c++ agai, lets see if I can find it:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c/c/WPH7ed5uS4Y/m/ohiP-hUWkcAJ
Content:
___________________________________
________________________________________________________________
#if ! defined (CT_C11_THREADS_H_EMULATION_H)
# define CT_C11_THREADS_H_EMULATION_H 1
# if defined (__cplusplus)
extern "C"
{
# endif
#if defined (CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF_LOG)
# include <stdio.h>
# define CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(mp_exp) printf mp_exp
#else
# define CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(mp_exp) ((void)(0))
#endif
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
typedef int (*ct_thrd_start_t) (void*);
struct ct_thrd_user
{
pthread_t ptid;
};
struct ct_thrd_sys
{
ct_thrd_start_t fp_user;
void* user_ctx;
int user_ret;
};
enum ct_thrd_sys_status
{
ct_thrd_success = 0,
ct_thrd_nomem = 1,
ct_thrd_timedout = 2,
ct_thrd_busy = 3,
ct_thrd_error = 4
};
/* low-level system threading API's
__________________________________________________________________*/
static struct ct_thrd_sys*
ct_thrd_sys_create(
ct_thrd_start_t fp_user,
void* user_ctx
);
static void
ct_thrd_sys_destroy(
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self
);
static void*
ct_thrd_sys_entry(
void* self_raw
);
struct ct_thrd_sys*
ct_thrd_sys_create(
ct_thrd_start_t fp_user,
void* user_ctx
){
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self = malloc(sizeof(*self));
if (self)
{
self->fp_user = fp_user;
self->user_ctx = user_ctx;
self->user_ret = 0;
}
CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(("ct_thrd_sys_create = %p\r\n", (void*)self));
return self;
}
void
ct_thrd_sys_destroy(
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self
){
free(self);
CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(
("ct_thrd_sys_destroy(self = %p)\r\n", (void*)self)
);
}
void*
ct_thrd_sys_entry(
void* self_raw
){
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self = self_raw;
CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(
("ct_thrd_sys_entry(self_raw = %p):Enter\r\n", self_raw)
);
self->user_ret = self->fp_user(self->user_ctx);
CT_C11_THREADS_H_PRINTF(
("ct_thrd_sys_entry(self_raw = %p):Exit = %p\r\n", self_raw,
(void*)self)
);
return self;
}
/* C11 emulation API layer
__________________________________________________________________*/
/* Threading API
______________________________________________________________*/
typedef struct ct_thrd_user ct_thrd_t;
static int
ct_thrd_create(
ct_thrd_t* uself,
ct_thrd_start_t fp_user,
void* user_ctx
);
static int
ct_thrd_join(
ct_thrd_t self,
int* user_retv
);
int
ct_thrd_create(
ct_thrd_t* uself,
ct_thrd_start_t fp_user,
void* user_ctx
){
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self =
ct_thrd_sys_create(fp_user, user_ctx);
if (self)
{
int status = pthread_create(&uself->ptid, NULL, ct_thrd_sys_entry,
self);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
ct_thrd_sys_destroy(self);
}
return ct_thrd_nomem;
}
int
ct_thrd_join(
ct_thrd_t self,
int* user_retv
){
void* ptjret = NULL;
pthread_join(self.ptid, &ptjret);
if (ptjret)
{
struct ct_thrd_sys* const self = ptjret;
if (user_retv)
{
*user_retv = self->user_ret;
}
ct_thrd_sys_destroy(self);
return ct_thrd_success;
}
return ct_thrd_error;
}
/* Thread Specific Storage API
______________________________________________________________*/
typedef pthread_key_t ct_tss_t;
typedef void(*ct_tss_dtor_t) (void*);
static int
ct_tss_create(
ct_tss_t* self,
ct_tss_dtor_t fp_user_dtor
);
static void
ct_tss_delete(
ct_tss_t self
);
static int
ct_tss_set(
ct_tss_t self,
void* user_ctx
);
#define ct_tss_get(mp_self) pthread_getspecific((mp_self))
int
ct_tss_create(
ct_tss_t* self,
ct_tss_dtor_t fp_user_dtor
){
int status = pthread_key_create(self, fp_user_dtor);
if (!status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
return ct_thrd_error;
}
void
ct_tss_delete(
ct_tss_t self
){
int status = pthread_key_delete(self);
if (! status)
{
return;
}
assert(! status);
}
int
ct_tss_set(
ct_tss_t self,
void* user_ctx
){
int status = pthread_setspecific(self, user_ctx);
if (!status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
return ct_thrd_error;
}
/* Mutex API
______________________________________________________________*/
typedef pthread_mutex_t ct_mtx_t;
enum {
ct_mtx_plain = 1,
ct_mtx_recursive = 2,
ct_mtx_timed = 4
};
int
ct_mtx_init(
ct_mtx_t* self,
int type
){
if (type == ct_mtx_plain)
{
int status = pthread_mutex_init(self, NULL);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
}
return ct_thrd_error;
}
void
ct_mtx_destroy(
ct_mtx_t* self
){
int status = pthread_mutex_destroy(self);
if (! status)
{
return;
}
assert(! status);
}
int
ct_mtx_lock(
ct_mtx_t* self
){
int status = pthread_mutex_lock(self);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
assert(! status);
return ct_thrd_error;
}
int
ct_mtx_unlock(
ct_mtx_t* self
){
int status = pthread_mutex_unlock(self);
if (!status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
assert(! status);
return ct_thrd_error;
}
/* Mutex API
______________________________________________________________*/
typedef pthread_cond_t ct_cnd_t;
int
ct_cnd_init(
ct_cnd_t* self
){
int status = pthread_cond_init(self, NULL);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
return ct_thrd_error;
}
void
ct_cnd_destroy(
ct_cnd_t* self
){
int status = pthread_cond_destroy(self);
if (! status)
{
return;
}
assert(! status);
}
int
ct_cnd_signal(
ct_cnd_t* self
){
int status = pthread_cond_signal(self);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
assert(! status);
return ct_thrd_error;
}
int
ct_cnd_broadcast(
ct_cnd_t* self
){
int status = pthread_cond_broadcast(self);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
assert(! status);
return ct_thrd_error;
}
int
ct_cnd_wait(
ct_cnd_t* self,
ct_mtx_t* mtx
){
int status = pthread_cond_wait(self, mtx);
if (! status)
{
return ct_thrd_success;
}
assert(! status);
return ct_thrd_error;
}
/* Mock up the final C11 API with some macros... ;^o
______________________________________________________________*/
/* C11 threading API
_________________________________________________*/
#define thrd_success ct_thrd_success
#define thrd_nomem ct_thrd_nomem
#define thrd_timedout ct_thrd_timedout
#define thrd_busy ct_thrd_busy
#define thrd_error ct_thrd_error
#define thrd_t ct_thrd_t
#define thrd_create ct_thrd_create
#define thrd_join ct_thrd_join
/* C11 thread specific storage API
_________________________________________________*/
#define tss_t ct_tss_t
#define tss_create ct_tss_create
#define tss_delete ct_tss_delete
#define tss_set ct_tss_set
#define tss_get ct_tss_get
/* C11 mutex API
_________________________________________________*/
#define mtx_plain ct_mtx_plain
#define mtx_recursive ct_mtx_recursive
#define mtx_timed ct_mtx_timed
#define mtx_t ct_mtx_t
#define mtx_init ct_mtx_init
#define mtx_destroy ct_mtx_destroy
#define mtx_lock ct_mtx_lock
#define mtx_unlock ct_mtx_unlock
/* C11 condition variable API
_________________________________________________*/
#define cnd_t ct_cnd_t
#define cnd_init ct_cnd_init
#define cnd_destroy ct_cnd_destroy
#define cnd_signal ct_cnd_signal
#define cnd_broadcast ct_cnd_broadcast
#define cnd_wait ct_cnd_wait
# if defined (__cplusplus)
}
# endif
#endif
________________________________________________________________
This is in my personal coding style. I am sorry if it ends up pissing you
off!
;^o
Anyway, what do you think?
:^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 09:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bn89f$2s5ol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125358 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 22:56:19 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:41:48 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >> >In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, >> >>Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >> >>standard library? No it would not be. >> >>The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... >> > >> >POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not >> >just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and >> >you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks >> >for C++ [and C].) >> >> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. > >Actually, implementing C++11 (or C11) threads fully in user space on >pre-Vista Win32 (i.e. before addition of support for conditional >variables to OS API) would be quite challenging. I don't know if >anybody bothered. >I think that it is possible, but if you want it robust then it (cond. >variables) will cost you significant overhead relatively to "native" >synchronization primitives. C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common denominator called Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 14:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <SEJDS.60663$GS_e.59175@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #125388 |
boltar@caprica.universe writes: >On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 22:56:19 +0200 >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 08:41:48 -0000 (UTC) >>boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC) >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >>> >In article <20261025011151.000038ef@yahoo.com>, >>> >>Now, would it be the first thing I would want like addition to C++ >>> >>standard library? No it would not be. >>> >>The first thing would be IPv4 communication, sockets, poll etc... >>> > >>> >POSIX has all of that. POSIX also has a process model. Why not >>> >just make POSIX a part of the language, then? (Answer that and >>> >you may start to understand why this is harder than it looks >>> >for C++ [and C].) >>> >>> No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading >>> model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. >> >>Actually, implementing C++11 (or C11) threads fully in user space on >>pre-Vista Win32 (i.e. before addition of support for conditional >>variables to OS API) would be quite challenging. I don't know if >>anybody bothered. >>I think that it is possible, but if you want it robust then it (cond. >>variables) will cost you significant overhead relatively to "native" >>synchronization primitives. > >C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it effectively >useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common denominator called >Windows. > Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a lock request for a lock with a lower number than that already held is a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in Burroughs mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy enough to do prior to C++17 in software. And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it intrinsically is "useless" is ridiculous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 16:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bnude$2sv8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125396 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >boltar@caprica.universe writes: >>C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it effectively >>useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common denominator called >>Windows. >> > >Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? If you have to ask.... 1. No lock 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers out of critic al section) 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block) This is basic stuff FFS. C++ finally got around to #2 with shared_mutex in 2017 and its rather critical for certain algorithms. >Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a lock >request for a lock with a lower number than that already held is >a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in Burroughs >mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy enough to do >prior to C++17 in software. Thats something else entirely. >And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it intrinsically >is "useless" is ridiculous. Not useless then, just less useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:45 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261026214517.00005217@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125399 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: > >boltar@caprica.universe writes: > >>C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it > >>effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common > >>denominator called Windows. > >> > > > >Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? > > If you have to ask.... > > 1. No lock > 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers > out of critic al section) > 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block) > Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader-writer--srw--locks Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately up until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of C++11 in 2011-09. > This is basic stuff FFS. C++ finally got around to #2 with > shared_mutex in 2017 and its rather critical for certain algorithms. > > >Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a lock > >request for a lock with a lower number than that already held is > >a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in Burroughs > >mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy enough to do > >prior to C++17 in software. > > Thats something else entirely. > > >And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it > >intrinsically is "useless" is ridiculous. > > Not useless then, just less useful. > I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by mistake. But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" computers day in day out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 13:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11boc79$u4nn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125406 |
On 10/26/2026 12:45 PM, Michael S wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC)
> boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled:
>>> boltar@caprica.universe writes:
>>>> C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it
>>>> effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common
>>>> denominator called Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular?
>>
>> If you have to ask....
>>
>> 1. No lock
>> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers
>> out of critic al section)
>> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block)
>>
>
> Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same
> time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11.
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader-writer--srw--locks
> Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately up
> until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of C++11 in
> 2011-09.
>
>> This is basic stuff FFS. C++ finally got around to #2 with
>> shared_mutex in 2017 and its rather critical for certain algorithms.
>>
>>> Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a lock
>>> request for a lock with a lower number than that already held is
>>> a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in Burroughs
>>> mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy enough to do
>>> prior to C++17 in software.
>>
>> Thats something else entirely.
>>
>>> And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it
>>> intrinsically is "useless" is ridiculous.
>>
>> Not useless then, just less useful.
>>
>
> I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by mistake.
> But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" computers day in day
> out.
Still don't really know what he means by 3 level locking. Using lock
hashing where an address is hashed into a lock index such that no object
needs its own lock is nothing new. But it needs to be sorted and deduped.
(google groups wrt usenet seems to be back up now)
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c++/c/sV4WC_cBb9Q/m/SkSqpSxGCAAJ
some of my old relacy code:
#include <relacy/relacy.hpp>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstddef>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#if ! defined (NDEBUG)
# define CT_DBG_PRINTF(e) std::printf e
#else
# define CT_DBG_PRINTF(e) ((void)0)
#endif
#define CT_THREADS (5)
#define CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N (64)
struct ct_mutex_table
{
rl::mutex m_mutexs[CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N];
std::size_t
hash_ptr(
void* p
) const {
return rl::hash_ptr(p, CT_MUTEX_TABLE_N);
}
};
struct ct_thread_mutex_hash
{
std::vector<std::size_t> m_hashed_idxs;
// must be before any locks!
void finalize()
{
std::sort(
m_hashed_idxs.begin(),
m_hashed_idxs.end());
m_hashed_idxs.erase(
std::unique(
m_hashed_idxs.begin(),
m_hashed_idxs.end()),
m_hashed_idxs.end());
}
// BEFORE WE CALL, WE NEED TO sort and dedup before this.
void
lock(
ct_mutex_table& mutex_table
) {
for (auto& mtx_idx : m_hashed_idxs)
{
rl::mutex& mtx = mutex_table.m_mutexs[mtx_idx];
mtx.lock($);
}
}
// does not really even need to be reversed...
void
unlock(
ct_mutex_table& mutex_table
) {
for (auto& mtx_idx : m_hashed_idxs)
{
rl::mutex& mtx = mutex_table.m_mutexs[mtx_idx];
mtx.unlock($);
}
}
};
struct ct_state
{
ct_mutex_table m_mutex_table;
VAR_T(int) m_var_0 = 0;
VAR_T(int) m_var_1 = 1;
VAR_T(int) m_var_2 = 2;
void worker_thread_a()
{
ct_thread_mutex_hash self_hash;
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_0));
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_1));
self_hash.finalize();
self_hash.lock(m_mutex_table);
VAR(m_var_0) = 42;
VAR(m_var_1) = 128;
self_hash.unlock(m_mutex_table);
}
void worker_thread_b()
{
ct_thread_mutex_hash self_hash;
// Seed!
{
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_1));
self_hash.m_hashed_idxs.push_back(
m_mutex_table.hash_ptr(&m_var_0));
}
// Okay... Finalize it...
{
self_hash.finalize();
}
// Finally, we can lock the bastard!
{
self_hash.lock(m_mutex_table);
{
VAR(m_var_0) = 99;
VAR(m_var_1) = 77;
}
self_hash.unlock(m_mutex_table);
}
}
};
struct ct_multex_relacy_test_v000
: rl::test_suite<ct_multex_relacy_test_v000, CT_THREADS>
{
ct_state m_state = { };
void before()
{
// not sure to init m_state here. Is it already init?
}
void
thread(
unsigned tidx
) {
if (tidx == 0)
m_state.worker_thread_a();
else
m_state.worker_thread_b();
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
{
rl::test_params p;
p.iteration_count = argc > 1 ? (unsigned)atoi(argv[1]) : 100000;
p.execution_depth_limit = 100000;
if (argc > 2) {
std::string m = argv[2];
if (m == "full") p.search_type = rl::sched_full;
else if (m == "bound") { p.search_type = rl::sched_bound;
p.context_bound = argc > 3 ? atoi(argv[3]) : 2; }
}
rl::simulate<ct_multex_relacy_test_v000>(p);
}
return 0;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 22:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261026224055.00002b67@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125411 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:12:24 -0700 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/26/2026 12:45 PM, Michael S wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) > > boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: > >>> boltar@caprica.universe writes: > >>>> C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it > >>>> effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest > >>>> common denominator called Windows. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in > >>> particular? > >> > >> If you have to ask.... > >> > >> 1. No lock > >> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers > >> out of critic al section) > >> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section > >> block) > > > > Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same > > time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader-writer--srw--locks > > Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately > > up until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of > > C++11 in 2011-09. > > > >> This is basic stuff FFS. C++ finally got around to #2 with > >> shared_mutex in 2017 and its rather critical for certain > >> algorithms. > >>> Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a > >>> lock request for a lock with a lower number than that already > >>> held is a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in > >>> Burroughs mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy > >>> enough to do prior to C++17 in software. > >> > >> Thats something else entirely. > >> > >>> And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it > >>> intrinsically is "useless" is ridiculous. > >> > >> Not useless then, just less useful. > >> > > > > I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by > > mistake. But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" > > computers day in day out. > Still don't really know what he means by 3 level locking. Using lock > hashing where an address is hashed into a lock index such that no > object needs its own lock is nothing new. But it needs to be sorted > and deduped. > He explained it in the post above. It seem that he mistyped few things in explanation, but it is possible to understand intentions. He is talking about std::shared_mutex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 13:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11boe2q$urh1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125419 |
On 10/26/2026 1:40 PM, Michael S wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:12:24 -0700 > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/26/2026 12:45 PM, Michael S wrote: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT >>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >>>>> boltar@caprica.universe writes: >>>>>> C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it >>>>>> effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest >>>>>> common denominator called Windows. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in >>>>> particular? >>>> >>>> If you have to ask.... >>>> >>>> 1. No lock >>>> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers >>>> out of critic al section) >>>> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section >>>> block) >>> >>> Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same >>> time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. >>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/sync/slim-reader-writer--srw--locks >>> Of course WinXP remained popular for few more years, approximately >>> up until 2nd half of 2010, but that too predates publication of >>> C++11 in 2011-09. >>> >>>> This is basic stuff FFS. C++ finally got around to #2 with >>>> shared_mutex in 2017 and its rather critical for certain >>>> algorithms. >>>>> Assigning a canonical "lock number" to each lock, and failing a >>>>> lock request for a lock with a lower number than that already >>>>> held is a design pattern that has been around since 1980 (in >>>>> Burroughs mainframes it was implemented in hardware). Easy >>>>> enough to do prior to C++17 in software. >>>> >>>> Thats something else entirely. >>>> >>>>> And your assertion that a language that doesn't support it >>>>> intrinsically is "useless" is ridiculous. >>>> >>>> Not useless then, just less useful. >>>> >>> >>> I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by >>> mistake. But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" >>> computers day in day out. >> Still don't really know what he means by 3 level locking. Using lock >> hashing where an address is hashed into a lock index such that no >> object needs its own lock is nothing new. But it needs to be sorted >> and deduped. >> > > He explained it in the post above. > It seem that he mistyped few things in explanation, but it is possible > to understand intentions. He is talking about std::shared_mutex. Ahhh! I call that a read/write mutex. Okay.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 08:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bsdgf$14cr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125406 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:45:17 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >> >boltar@caprica.universe writes: >> >>C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it >> >>effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common >> >>denominator called Windows. >> >> >> > >> >Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? >> >> If you have to ask.... >> >> 1. No lock >> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers >> out of critic al section) >> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block) >> > >Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same >time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >> Not useless then, just less useful. >> > >I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by mistake. >But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" computers day in day >out. Fine, most people will never use it, but for certain things its vital.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bto2u$2prdo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125462 |
On 10/28/2026 1:58 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:45:17 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) >> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >>>> boltar@caprica.universe writes: >>>>> C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it >>>>> effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common >>>>> denominator called Windows. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? >>> >>> If you have to ask.... >>> >>> 1. No lock >>> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers >>> out of critic al section) >>> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block) >>> >> >> Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same >> time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. > > And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. > >>> Not useless then, just less useful. >>> >> >> I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by mistake. >> But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" computers day in day >> out. > > Fine, most people will never use it, but for certain things its vital. > Its simple, if you don't like windows, do use the damn pile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-28 14:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bto41$2prdo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125475 |
On 10/28/2026 2:05 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 10/28/2026 1:58 AM, boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:45:17 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) >>> boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT >>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: >>>>> boltar@caprica.universe writes: >>>>>> C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it >>>>>> effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest common >>>>>> denominator called Windows. >>>>> >>>>> Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in particular? >>>> >>>> If you have to ask.... >>>> >>>> 1. No lock >>>> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers >>>> out of critic al section) >>>> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section block) >>>> >>> >>> Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same >>> time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. >> >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >> >>>> Not useless then, just less useful. >>>> >>> >>> I never ever used what you call "3 level locking", not even by mistake. >>> But then, I don't write complicated apps on "big" computers day in day >>> out. >> >> Fine, most people will never use it, but for certain things its vital. >> > > Its simple, if you don't like windows, do use the damn pile. Argh! Damn typos! Don't use the damn pile! :^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 00:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <20261029000645.00007c70@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #125462 |
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 21:45:17 +0200 > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: > >On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:16:46 -0000 (UTC) > >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 14:41:54 GMT > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) gabbled: > >> >boltar@caprica.universe writes: > >> >>C++ threading didn't have 3 level locking until 2017 making it > >> >>effectively useless IMO. Perhaps that was down to the lowest > >> >>common denominator called Windows. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Mind defining your terminology? "3 level locking", in > >> >particular? > >> > >> If you have to ask.... > >> > >> 1. No lock > >> 2. Write lock - Read only access, writer blocked until all readers > >> out of critic al section) > >> 3. Read-write lock - all threads other than the one in section > >> block) > > > >Windows got Slim Reader/Writer Locks in Vista (2006-11) at the same > >time as conditional variables. 5 years before C++11. > > And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. > That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying such nonsense. More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled threads + assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning (1993) - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of Posix standardisation of threads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | boltar@caprica.universe |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-29 16:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: “The end of software secrecy is almost upon |
| Message-ID | <11bvrs5$16v50$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125481 |
On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 00:06:45 +0200 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled: >On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 08:58:55 -0000 (UTC) >boltar@caprica.universe wrote: >> And unix got pthreads in 1995. Windows a decade late as usual. >> > >That's like if I'd say that Linux is 33 years (and counting) late >because it has no QueueUserAPC(). Of course, I am smarter than saying >such nonsense. > >More relevantly, Windows (Win32) has preemptive kernel-scheduled threads >+ assortment of synchronization primitives since very beginning (1993) > - ahead of many Unixen and behind some of them. Certainly ahead of > Posix standardisation of threads. Wow, pre-emptive multitasking in 1993. Incredible technology!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web