Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <e1d235Fj08vU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92262 |
On 08/15/16 09:00 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : >> On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. >>> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. > > I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all > threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. Why do you have to be so consistently rude? -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <672aa7ee-0905-4377-9794-7a144633c652@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92273 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 07:26:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Ian Collins napisał: > On 08/15/16 09:00 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > > Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : > >> On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > > >>> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. > >>> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. > > > > I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all > > threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. > > Why do you have to be so consistently rude? > better consistently then not, isnt it? you some are constantly 'rude' and yet mix tyhat with constant way ob blockheadness (and stupidness when some points that out)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5186e882-0cbf-43e8-9d06-a183635f56fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92274 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 08:09:27 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 07:26:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Ian Collins napisał: > > On 08/15/16 09:00 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > > > Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : > > >> On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > > > > >>> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. > > >>> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. > > > > > > I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all > > > threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. > > > > Why do you have to be so consistently rude? > > > better consistently then not, isnt it? > you some are constantly 'rude' and yet mix tyhat with > constant way ob blockheadness (and stupidness when some > points that out) youre "pretentious to be buffoned rudes carrying the bullshit on this group 9in buffoned rude and stupid way)" to be more correct - your speaches are always that way (speaking on rheketedeb funy club)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c2221eb-fc67-42fa-9edd-8c7dc7d38e90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92275 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 08:17:01 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 08:09:27 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 15 sierpnia 2016 07:26:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Ian Collins napisał: > > > On 08/15/16 09:00 AM, jacobnavia wrote: > > > > Le 14/08/2016 à 22:29, James R. Kuyper a écrit : > > > >> On 08/14/2016 04:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > > > > > > >>> jacob, you do not appear to have participated in either thread. > > > >>> I don't know whether you were active here at the time. > > > > > > > > I have been always "active" thompson, but did not participate in all > > > > threads started by you and mr heathfield since I know you already. > > > > > > Why do you have to be so consistently rude? > > > > > better consistently then not, isnt it? > > you some are constantly 'rude' and yet mix tyhat with > > constant way ob blockheadness (and stupidness when some > > points that out) > > youre "pretentious to be buffoned rudes carrying the bullshit on this group 9in buffoned rude and stupid way)" to be more correct - your speaches are always that way (speaking on rheketedeb funy club) reheketedeb funy club of zomboids (to be more precise)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nopbd9$gfa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92237 |
Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b1db06a-b88b-4bbf-9d32-888c56ce7a01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92239 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 10:50:57 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > > As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. > > As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased you know that heathfield is preposteros clown, dont you? he is funny buffon with not a word to say anything valuable, he is like heavy drunk all the time and makes his drunky activity - the core of brainlessnes of this group is obviously thompson, heathfield, brown - dark team of amazingly brainlack users (i make this statemant as i often being especialy striked by this fellows stupidity and their effort to impose this preposteropus stupidity on a bit less stupid users - Get them off and maybe this totaly boring group will relive a bit)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nopqus$u4v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92239 |
On 14/08/16 09:50, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. > > As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased Sure. Everybody's opinion is biased. That's almost (but not quite) the definition of "opinion". A regular contributor can reasonably be said to have a legitimate interest in the topicality of the group. You, too, are a regular contributor to this group, and therefore you have a legitimate interest in what is considered topical here. But *in addition* you are a compiler vendor. Like Walter Banks, like P J Plauger, like the GCC team, like the Microsoft C team, you would benefit from your particular compiler being considered topical here. That's not a criticism. It's just a fact of life. Some people who contribute to this group would prefer for discussions about individual compilers to be posted in the groups dedicated to those compilers, and that's not an unreasonable view. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddff3d55-59b4-490f-982a-3a54dfaca05d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92247 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 15:16:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > On 14/08/16 09:50, jacobnavia wrote: > > Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > >> As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. > > > > As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased > > Sure. Everybody's opinion is biased. That's almost (but not quite) the > definition of "opinion". > > A regular contributor can reasonably be said to have a legitimate > interest in the topicality of the group. You, too, are a regular > contributor to this group, and therefore you have a legitimate interest > in what is considered topical here. > > But *in addition* you are a compiler vendor. Like Walter Banks, like P J > Plauger, like the GCC team, like the Microsoft C team, you would benefit > from your particular compiler being considered topical here. That's not > a criticism. It's just a fact of life. > > Some people who contribute to this group would prefer for discussions > about individual compilers to be posted in the groups dedicated to those > compilers, and that's not an unreasonable view. > > -- > Richard Heathfield > Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 > Sig line 4 vacant - apply within regular contributor of weak and boring bulshit - which you try buff liek youre regular buffed contributor of bulsshit - for ever bullshit forever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsnr1co4.qia.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #92248 |
On 2016-08-14, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > regular contributor of weak and boring bulshit - which you try buff > liek youre regular buffed contributor of bulsshit - for ever bullshit > forever Fir, are you really a "profesor"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160814201856.4c6aaafe@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #92249 |
On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 18:05:58 -0000 (UTC) Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> wrote: > On 2016-08-14, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > > regular contributor of weak and boring bulshit - which you try buff > > liek youre regular buffed contributor of bulsshit - for ever > > bullshit forever > > Fir, are you really a "profesor"? Professor of English? ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18a29612-bf07-4943-b83c-57261acb7dde@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92249 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 20:06:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Ike Naar napisał: > On 2016-08-14, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > > regular contributor of weak and boring bulshit - which you try buff > > liek youre regular buffed contributor of bulsshit - for ever bullshit > > forever > > Fir, are you really a "profesor"? recently im a profesor on human stupidity - and thompson heathfield and brown are my main "species"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <359aa1de-66bd-49eb-8c3d-d98db3830f94@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92251 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 20:54:16 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 20:06:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Ike Naar napisał: > > On 2016-08-14, fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> wrote: > > > regular contributor of weak and boring bulshit - which you try buff > > > liek youre regular buffed contributor of bulsshit - for ever bullshit > > > forever > > > > Fir, are you really a "profesor"? > > recently im a profesor on human stupidity - and thompson heathfield and brown are my main "species" i know im very 'strightforward' at laughing at 'em and pointing their lunatic stupidity out, but this boredom was so heavy strike and i was suggesting those things in a bit more convoluted way - they didnt get that so for fun i decided to be yet more clear ;C this group is totally deadbrain and they still turn over the most boring crap like it would be normal, they only use this banal crap to buffonade themselves - nothing fresh and nothing worth even quick scanning -- imo y'all should really try to get off this zombie commando and start doin something fresh - my voice is vote for that (though i dont belive in any succes to be honest, but still my voice is some voice of hope in this programming zombieland)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noqg3b$5ve$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92247 |
Le 14/08/2016 à 15:16, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > On 14/08/16 09:50, jacobnavia wrote: >> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >>> As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. >> >> As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased > > Sure. Everybody's opinion is biased. That's almost (but not quite) the > definition of "opinion". > OK. Then please do not start with "decisions" that would have been made in this group without proving that OK? It is yours and thompson's OPINION that compilers are off topic because... you say so. Your majesty. > A regular contributor can reasonably be said to have a legitimate > interest in the topicality of the group. You, too, are a regular > contributor to this group, and therefore you have a legitimate interest > in what is considered topical here. > The regulars play "topic police". I don't. Yeah evangelists are a bore but when I answered hodgin I did not argue with "off topic" or whatever. I argued with a resolute atheist approach. > But *in addition* you are a compiler vendor. Yes, I try to live from my work and I have even proven in a long track record here, that I do not have any regrets. :-) > Like Walter Banks, like P J > Plauger, like the GCC team, like the Microsoft C team, This is rediculous comparing me with all those huge companies. But maybe I should feel ??? (who knows what mr heathfield is thinking here in this comparison?) > you would benefit > from your particular compiler being considered topical here. That's not > a criticism. It's just a fact of life. > Yeah, I could distrubyte 0.000011% more free copies of lcc-win and win something like zero dollars (since nobody pays anything). Great heathfield I could have a vested interest in compilers being topical but maybe maybe you realize that the discussion was about CLANG and not lcc-win at all? Ahhh yes, but I could have in this discussion an interest as a precedent so that I could LATER introduce subreptitiously my merchandise in the discussion. And gain my zero dollars! > Some people who contribute to this group would prefer for discussions > about individual compilers to be posted in the groups dedicated to those > compilers, and that's not an unreasonable view. > Yes some people would prefer that. So what? I don't. jacob P.S. Excuse me your Majesty but ... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c85626e-9944-49c0-8aac-f273f3ac358b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92253 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 21:17:11 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > Le 14/08/2016 à 15:16, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > > On 14/08/16 09:50, jacobnavia wrote: > >> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : > >>> As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. > >> > >> As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased > > > > Sure. Everybody's opinion is biased. That's almost (but not quite) the > > definition of "opinion". > > > > OK. Then please do not start with "decisions" that would have been made > in this group without proving that OK? > > It is yours and thompson's OPINION that compilers are off topic > because... you say so. > > Your majesty. > > > A regular contributor can reasonably be said to have a legitimate > > interest in the topicality of the group. You, too, are a regular > > contributor to this group, and therefore you have a legitimate interest > > in what is considered topical here. > > > > The regulars play "topic police". I don't. Yeah evangelists are a bore > but when I answered hodgin I did not argue with "off topic" or whatever. > I argued with a resolute atheist approach. > > > But *in addition* you are a compiler vendor. > > Yes, I try to live from my work and I have even proven in a long track > record here, that I do not have any regrets. > > :-) > > > > Like Walter Banks, like P J > > Plauger, like the GCC team, like the Microsoft C team, > > This is rediculous comparing me with all those huge companies. But maybe > I should feel ??? (who knows what mr heathfield is thinking here in this > comparison?) > > > you would benefit > > from your particular compiler being considered topical here. That's not > > a criticism. It's just a fact of life. > > > > Yeah, I could distrubyte 0.000011% more free copies of lcc-win and win > something like zero dollars (since nobody pays anything). > > Great heathfield I could have a vested interest in compilers being > topical but maybe > > maybe you realize that the discussion was about CLANG and not lcc-win at > all? > > Ahhh yes, but I could have in this discussion an interest as a precedent > so that I could LATER introduce subreptitiously my merchandise in the > discussion. > > And gain my zero dollars! > > > Some people who contribute to this group would prefer for discussions > > about individual compilers to be posted in the groups dedicated to those > > compilers, and that's not an unreasonable view. > > > > Yes some people would prefer that. > > So what? > > I don't. > > jacob > > P.S. Excuse me your Majesty but ... > in reality it is most comic reheketedeb komando (rh kt db) simulate that they want otopic where 90% of their production is offtopic buffonade and 10% is weak crap not worth seeing at all [this is how bullshitters work - they bullshit]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noqijs$ek0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92253 |
On 14/08/16 20:16, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 14/08/2016 à 15:16, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >> On 14/08/16 09:50, jacobnavia wrote: >>> Le 14/08/2016 à 10:07, Richard Heathfield a écrit : >>>> As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. >>> >>> As a known member of the "regulars" group, your opinion is biased >> >> Sure. Everybody's opinion is biased. That's almost (but not quite) the >> definition of "opinion". >> > > OK. Then please do not start with "decisions" that would have been made > in this group without proving that OK? Proving what, exactly? > It is yours and thompson's OPINION that compilers are off topic > because... you say so. If Keith and I were the only ones in the group who think compilers are off-topic here, you'd have a point. But, just as neither I nor Keith determine what is topical here, neither do you. Rather, the group as a whole determines it. The group was established for "discussions about C". Since then, a whole multitude of groups has sprung up to cover the very many ancillary topics that might be considered C-related. For example, there are groups for discussing particular compilers. There is even a group for discussing /your/ compiler. Discussions about your compiler are topical /in that group/. The group's overall opinion on topicality was canvassed in 2007. Maybe it's time to do that exercise again. > > Your majesty. When you say stupid things like that, you demean yourself. It is not the way to rally intelligent people to your cause. >> A regular contributor can reasonably be said to have a legitimate >> interest in the topicality of the group. You, too, are a regular >> contributor to this group, and therefore you have a legitimate interest >> in what is considered topical here. >> > > The regulars play "topic police". Some do, yes. > I don't. You see? Some don't. Personally, I would like to see the topic of this group widened a little, but I am not prepared to trample over the expressed opinion of the group as a whole. On those (rare) occasions when I play topic cop, I am expressing a view about topicality *as it is*, not topicality as I would necessarily like it to be. > Yeah evangelists are a bore > but when I answered hodgin I did not argue with "off topic" or whatever. > I argued with a resolute atheist approach. Do you think this group's function is to discuss religion? >> But *in addition* you are a compiler vendor. > > Yes, I try to live from my work and I have even proven in a long track > record here, that I do not have any regrets. Fine, but you have a whole newsgroup of your own in which to express such sentiments and in which your promotion of your compiler is wholly topical. Why not use it? >> Like Walter Banks, like P J >> Plauger, like the GCC team, like the Microsoft C team, > > This is rediculous comparing me with all those huge companies. No, it isn't. (And much as I respect Walter Banks, I don't think he counts as a huge company.) You are all compiler vendors, and as such would all have a vested interest in making topical the discussion of your compiler in this group. > But maybe > I should feel ??? (who knows what mr heathfield is thinking here in this > comparison?) Well, if you'd read my article more thoroughly, you'd know exactly what I was thinking, but I'll spell it out again: like any other C compiler vendor, you have a vested interest in making topical the discussion of your compiler in this group. >> you would benefit >> from your particular compiler being considered topical here. That's not >> a criticism. It's just a fact of life. > > Yeah, I could distrubyte 0.000011% more free copies of lcc-win and win > something like zero dollars (since nobody pays anything). If you gained no benefit from maintaining your compiler, you wouldn't bother maintaining it. Such benefits as you do gain (whether they be financial or something else) imply a vested interest in increasing those benefits by rendering topical the discussion of your compiler and thus raising its profile. > Great heathfield I could have a vested interest in compilers being > topical but maybe > > maybe you realize that the discussion was about CLANG and not lcc-win at > all? It doesn't matter /which/ compiler it was. Somewhere, there will be a group where CLANG is topical. At present, this group is not it. If you want to change that, you're going to have to persuade people that the change is a good thing. At the moment, you're not thinking clearly enough to be able to persuade anyone. > Ahhh yes, but I could have in this discussion an interest as a precedent > so that I could LATER introduce subreptitiously my merchandise in the > discussion. Yes. > And gain my zero dollars! And gain whatever benefits accrue to you from maintaining your compiler. That is indeed the conflict of interest, yes. > >> Some people who contribute to this group would prefer for discussions >> about individual compilers to be posted in the groups dedicated to those >> compilers, and that's not an unreasonable view. >> > > Yes some people would prefer that. > > So what? > > I don't. My opinion (on its own) doesn't matter. Your opinion (on its own) doesn't matter. What matters is the collective opinion of the group. If you want to demonstrate that the collective opinion of the group is in line with your view, you're going to need a better argument than "I don't like Richard very much". > jacob > > P.S. Excuse me your Majesty but ... Why do you bother with such stupidities? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9232b6b-376d-426d-bcc4-ecdc59201e4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92257 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 22:00:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > Your majesty. > > When you say stupid things like that, you demean yourself. It is not the > way to rally intelligent people to your cause. > NOT REALLY, I READ THIS AS A SUGGESTION THAT YOURE UNINTELIGENT ONE WHO BUFFS HERESELF AND FINDS YOUR CONSTANT BUFFONADES AS A SOME DISGUISE OF BRAINLESSNES BEHIND THAT SAME WITH THOMPSON WHO USES OTHER KIND (MORE BRICK HARD ONE) AS A DISGUISE OF HIS THOUGHTLESS ZOMBOIDNES (SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK I RECENTLY USE THAT AND FORGOT TO TURN IT OF - AND I RERELY WATCH THE TEXT I WRITE) NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD DIE OF BORE READING ALL THOSE YOUR EXPLANATIONS AND ADVICES - AS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF CRAP YOU USE TO KILL YOUR OWN TIME - NOTHING MORE, IS THIS REALLY VALUABLE? NO -> QUITE OPPOSITE YOU AND THOMPSON WROTE TEAR LONG ELABORATES ON THAT AND EFFECTIVLY EAT TEARS OF PEOPLES LIFE, THAT WHY I DONT PARTICIPARE IN YOUR ZOMBOID CRAP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0106a8a6-57bc-4a54-b71d-45adab163f36@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92260 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 22:48:13 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 22:00:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > Your majesty. > > > > When you say stupid things like that, you demean yourself. It is not the > > way to rally intelligent people to your cause. > > > > NOT REALLY, I READ THIS AS A SUGGESTION THAT YOURE UNINTELIGENT ONE WHO BUFFS HERESELF AND FINDS YOUR CONSTANT BUFFONADES AS A SOME DISGUISE OF BRAINLESSNES BEHIND THAT > > SAME WITH THOMPSON WHO USES OTHER KIND (MORE BRICK HARD ONE) AS A DISGUISE OF HIS THOUGHTLESS ZOMBOIDNES (SORRY FOR CAPSLOCK I RECENTLY USE THAT AND FORGOT TO TURN IT OF - AND I RERELY WATCH THE TEXT I WRITE) > > NORMAL PEOPLE WOULD DIE OF BORE READING ALL THOSE YOUR EXPLANATIONS AND ADVICES - AS THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOME KIND OF CRAP YOU USE TO KILL YOUR OWN TIME - NOTHING MORE, IS THIS REALLY VALUABLE? NO -> QUITE OPPOSITE > > YOU AND THOMPSON WROTE TEAR LONG ELABORATES ON THAT AND EFFECTIVLY EAT TEARS OF PEOPLES LIFE, THAT WHY I DONT PARTICIPARE IN YOUR ZOMBOID CRAP IT WOULDNT QUITE EXCLUDED THAT YOURE A ZOMBIES SEND TO DESTROY THIS GROUP - USING PRETEXTS OF OFFTOPICITY TO KILL PEOPLE BY BOREDOM FOR YEARS AND KILL YOUR OWN BRAINCELLS - BEING DUMB MAY BE USEFULL FOR YOU? MAYBE YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN KILLING YOUR BRAIN AND NOT LETTING THEM FUNCTION? AT ALL THINKING AND BEING AWARE HURTS AND MAKES PAIN, BEING DUMB IS PAINLESS (YAWN) THIS IS ONLY REASON I CAN SEE TO PRODUCE THIS CRAP HUNDREDS OF HOURS OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER OVER AND OVER (YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN YAWN ) for me personally when i see all this crap it is striking and disgusting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ded12af-9af5-4c68-84d1-86cdb6639366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92237 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 10:07:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > On 11/08/16 22:10, jacobnavia wrote: > > <snip> > > > I repeat that you do not have ANY right to bully people off to another > > newsgroup because C compilers are ON TOPIC HERE > > As a compiler vendor, you have a conflict of interest. > > There are individual newsgroups for discussing individual compilers. > There is even one devoted to your own compiler. > > 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. > > > WHY? > > > >>> Reason: The compiler is the primary tool for the C language. > > That's not a good enough reason for something to be topical here. > Otherwise, the minutiae of English grammar would be topical because > English is the primary language in which the C language is defined, PDF > would be topical because it's the primary vehicle for distribution of > the C Standard, Linux would be topical because it's the primary platform > on which people use C, and so on and so on. All of these subjects have > /other newsgroups/ where they can be and indeed are discussed. /This/ > newsgroup is about the C language. > > Nobody can stop you flogging your compiler in here, but you do so in the > face of the expressed wishes of the group, and that is not good PR. > dont listen to this preposterous propaganda of our vell know stupid buffon clown heathfield (i was not here long time but i see our clown not improved) I and also some other persons are willing to discuss compilers here (and wuite opposite dont want to see heathfield-thompson and brown crap here) Ehat i personally would like is to discuss some more oryginal and not well know blablings they constently replicate but some more indepth and specyfic
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877fbj8wqi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #92237 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: <snip> > 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. Is this the discussion started by you (thread title "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?") from 2007? In that thread you characterised various broad opinions about topicality (labelled with letters) and most people replied in relation to those, but they were all (except one) about the programming /language/ to be discussed, not topicality itself. The only one that would have permitted a discussion about, say, the "sanitise" options of gcc or the code generation of Intel's compiler was "Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and the Metropolitan District of South Humberside." People could "write in a name" in the sense of saying "I'm in group C but C compilers should also be topical" but the discussion was loaded against a whole range of possibly topical subjects from the start. Not for any underhand purpose, I hasten to add -- you were responding to a hot topic at the time which was whether extensions to C and which versions of C should be topical. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nopqep$ppj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92245 |
On 14/08/16 11:34, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > <snip> >> 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. > > Is this the discussion started by you (thread title "Should we broaden > the topicality of this group?") from 2007? Yes, that's the one I was talking about. > In that thread you characterised various broad opinions about topicality > (labelled with letters) and most people replied in relation to those, > but they were all (except one) about the programming /language/ to be > discussed, not topicality itself. The only one that would have > permitted a discussion about, say, the "sanitise" options of gcc or the > code generation of Intel's compiler was > > "Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including > device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and > the Metropolitan District of South Humberside." > > People could "write in a name" in the sense of saying "I'm in group C > but C compilers should also be topical" but the discussion was loaded > against a whole range of possibly topical subjects from the start. Not > for any underhand purpose, I hasten to add -- you were responding to a > hot topic at the time which was whether extensions to C and which > versions of C should be topical. You make a fair point. So perhaps it's time for yet another re-run of the topicality debate. This time, though, I'd prefer it if someone else were to host it. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web