Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: GCC vs Clang
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 13:47:03 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <lneg5roz7c.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <nn4tao$4hi$1@dont-email.me> <noev9h$gg9$1@dont-email.me> <lnoa50twco.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nofm46$1cb$1@dont-email.me> <lny444sbl5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <nofv94$3hv$1@dont-email.me> <4p0oqbh4ail533kg8acdg2u1p3n2d47n6f@4ax.com> <nohgst$bh3$1@dont-email.me> <nohicn$fua$1@dont-email.me> <ln8tw3s1oe.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <noie4c$enu$1@dont-email.me> <lnwpjnqfwm.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <noihj6$quv$1@dont-email.me> <lnoa4zqej4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <noij85$1io$1@dont-email.me> <lnk2fnqd4z.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <noikml$5vj$1@dont-email.me> <lnfuqbqb1d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <noipkl$ojj$1@dont-email.me> <nop8s6$adh$1@dont-email.me> <nopbc3$gfa$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="12578"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ac9E1g79cBf4qZICeF6JP"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mHPgd4SZ5fKpY1zlcV2yGCQ4XDs= sha1:XqqmYUqXJQ4huXpKckDB/YBawKM=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:92256

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit :
>> The people who use this newsgroup decided some time ago, in a discussion
>> on topicality, that it should remain strictly about ISO C itself and
>> (for historical reasons) K&R C. Discussions about compilers are
>> therefore off-topic in this group and should be taken to groups where
>> those compilers are topical.
>
> I am posting here since (at least) 1995 and I do not remember such a 
> decision. You will have to show the messages concerned.

On 2007-09-29, Richard Heathfield posted an article titled
    "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?"
available at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MGgA-vbDDUM/c3fzO42AQqYJ
Message-ID: <Q4GdnReyhdEy0mPbnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@bt.com>

On 2007-10-02, he posted a summary with the title
    "Topicality discussion - summary".
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.lang.c/MsQ1jcAwc0Q/i0fOy16JofoJ
Message-ID: <acOdnb474quom5_anZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>

jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread.
I don't know whether you were active here at the time.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"