Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #23436 > unrolled thread

What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2012-07-20 15:21 +0200
    Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-20 14:57 +0100
      Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-21 14:39 -0700
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2012-07-21 23:31 +0000
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-21 21:57 -0700
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-22 17:27 +0300
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 11:15 -0700
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-22 18:43 +0000
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 10:14 -0700
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2012-07-22 22:43 +0000
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 10:59 -0700
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-22 02:43 +0100
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-21 22:05 -0700
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Seungbeom Kim <musiphil@bawi.org> - 2012-07-22 03:20 -0700
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-22 14:25 +0100
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-07-22 18:56 -0400
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-23 01:37 +0100
                Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-07-23 07:27 -0400
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-23 06:45 +0000
                Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-07-23 07:37 -0400
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2012-07-23 06:49 +0000
              Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-07-23 12:42 +0100
    Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-07-20 15:58 +0200
      Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2012-07-20 16:02 +0200
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-07-20 16:22 +0200
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2012-07-20 16:26 +0200
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-07-20 15:11 -0400
            Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-08-25 00:16 -0500
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-07-20 15:10 -0400
    Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-07-20 18:15 +0200
    Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-20 09:51 -0700
      Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-07-20 20:29 -0400
        Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-20 20:25 -0700
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-07-21 22:22 +0300
          Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-21 14:54 -0700
      Re: expressions, evaluations, and values (was: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ?) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-07-21 14:52 -0700
    Re: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-07-20 10:08 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#23600

On 2012-07-22, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> That aside, 0.0 == 0 is interesting.  On a machine that has an exact
> floating zero, 0 must convert to it, but 0.0 need not (surely this is
> unintended?).  On one that does not have an exact floating zero, very
> similar wording is used in 6.3.1.4 p2 (for the conversion) as is used in
> 6.4.4.2 p3 (for the representation of the constant):
>
>   "the result is either the nearest representable value, or the larger
>   or smaller representable value immediately adjacent to the nearest
>   representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner."
>
>   "the result is either the nearest higher or nearest lower
>   representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner"
>
> but there's nothing to say that the implementation must choose in the
> same way in both cases.  A perverse implementation could "round" 0.0 up
> and convert 0 by going the other way!

That also raises the question: in

  static double d;

what would be the initial value of d?
0 or 0.0 ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23611

Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> writes:

> On 2012-07-22, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> That aside, 0.0 == 0 is interesting.  On a machine that has an exact
>> floating zero, 0 must convert to it, but 0.0 need not (surely this is
>> unintended?).  On one that does not have an exact floating zero, very
>> similar wording is used in 6.3.1.4 p2 (for the conversion) as is used in
>> 6.4.4.2 p3 (for the representation of the constant):
>>
>>   "the result is either the nearest representable value, or the larger
>>   or smaller representable value immediately adjacent to the nearest
>>   representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner."
>>
>>   "the result is either the nearest higher or nearest lower
>>   representable value, chosen in an implementation-defined manner"
>>
>> but there's nothing to say that the implementation must choose in the
>> same way in both cases.  A perverse implementation could "round" 0.0 up
>> and convert 0 by going the other way!
>
> That also raises the question: in
>
>   static double d;
>
> what would be the initial value of d?
> 0 or 0.0 ?

I think it must be floating zero.  My remarks about machine with no
exact zero are somewhat hypothetical.  I am not yet convinced that such
a machine can support a conforming C implementation, but people whose
opinions I respect currently disagree.

As someone else has already point out (sorry, I don't recall who right
now), the rules for default initialisation of objects with static storage
duration state that arithmetic types are initialised to "(positive or
unsigned) zero;".  I don't think that can mean anything but exact zero
(whatever that really means).

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23439

Xavier Roche wrote:

> Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
> 	0.0 ? 1 : 0
> 
> With gcc 4.3/Linux, the result is 0. With Visual C++2010, the result is.. 1.
> 
> Is the result undefined by the standard, by chance ?

Lemme see...

3.3.15 Conditional operator

Syntax

  conditional-expression:
    logical-OR-expression
    logical-OR-expression ?  expression :  conditional-expression

Constraints

   The first operand shall have scalar type.
   [...]

Semantics

   The first operand is evaluated; there is a sequence point after
its evaluation.  The second operand is evaluated only if the first
compares unequal to 0; the third operand is evaluated only if the
first compares equal to 0; the value of the second or third operand
(whichever is evaluated) is the result[41].

[41] A conditional expression does not yield an lvalue.

0.0 is a 'floating-constant' which is a kind of 'primary-expression'
which is a kind of 'logical-OR-expression'.

(Scalar type means integral or floating or pointer.)

Since 0.0 (the floating constant) compares equal to 0 (the integral constant)
(0.0 ? 1 : 0) has value 0, as far as I can tell.

Regards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23440

On 07/20/2012 03:58 PM, Noob wrote:
> Since 0.0 (the floating constant) compares equal to 0 (the integral constant)
> (0.0 ? 1 : 0) has value 0, as far as I can tell.

Thanks a lot to both of you. It appears to be a bug in Visual C++ 2010 
(*) then.

This impression is confirmed when trying:
	static double zero = 0.0;
..
	zero ? 0 : 1
which returns the correct value (0).

(*) tested version: cl.exe 16.00.30319.01 for x64 (same issue using the 
x86 release)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23441

Xavier Roche wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 03:58 PM, Noob wrote:
>> Since 0.0 (the floating constant) compares equal to 0 (the integral constant)
>> (0.0 ? 1 : 0) has value 0, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Thanks a lot to both of you. It appears to be a bug in Visual C++ 2010 
> (*) then.
> 
> This impression is confirmed when trying:
> 	static double zero = 0.0;
> ..
> 	zero ? 0 : 1
> which returns the correct value (0).

NB: You swapped 0 and 1 there.

( 0.0 ? 42 : 666) evaluates to 666
(zero ? 42 : 666) evaluates to 666

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23443

On 07/20/2012 04:22 PM, Noob wrote:
> NB: You swapped 0 and 1 there.

Yes, my mistake (but the tested code is the initial one and has the 
wrong value)

I have reported the issue on the "Visual C++ Language" forums (I can't 
understand why they ditched the microsoft.* groups for this piece of 
webforum junk by the way)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23457

On 7/20/2012 10:26 AM, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 04:22 PM, Noob wrote:
>> NB: You swapped 0 and 1 there.
>
> Yes, my mistake (but the tested code is the initial one and has the wrong
> value)
>
> I have reported the issue on the "Visual C++ Language" forums (I can't
> understand why they ditched the microsoft.* groups for this piece of
> webforum junk by the way)

Haven't you heard?  Usenet is dead.  :-)

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#24887

On 7/20/2012 9:26 AM, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 04:22 PM, Noob wrote:
>> NB: You swapped 0 and 1 there.
>
> Yes, my mistake (but the tested code is the initial one and has the
> wrong value)
>
> I have reported the issue on the "Visual C++ Language" forums (I can't
> understand why they ditched the microsoft.* groups for this piece of
> webforum junk by the way)

Partly because their connection to Google Groups allowed a large
inflow of spam and posts saying that other operating systems are
better.

Partly because they are moving away from supporting newsgroups at
all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23456

On 7/20/2012 10:02 AM, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 03:58 PM, Noob wrote:
>> Since 0.0 (the floating constant) compares equal to 0 (the integral constant)
>> (0.0 ? 1 : 0) has value 0, as far as I can tell.
>
> Thanks a lot to both of you. It appears to be a bug in Visual C++ 2010 (*)
> then.
>
> This impression is confirmed when trying:
>      static double zero = 0.0;
> ...
>      zero ? 0 : 1
> which returns the correct value (0).
>
> (*) tested version: cl.exe 16.00.30319.01 for x64 (same issue using the x86
> release)

Confirmed as well with cl.exe 16.00.40219.01 for 80x86.

=====
#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
	{
	double zero = 0.0;
	printf("%d\n", ( 0.0 ? 1 : 0 ) );
	printf("%d\n", ( zero ? 1 : 0 ) );
	return(0);
	}
=====

Displays:

     1
     0

=====

Interestingly enough, if I turn optimization all the way on, it eliminates 
the conditionals altogether, as well as the variable "zero", and compiles to 
the equivalent of:

     printf("%d\n",1);
     printf("%d\n",0);

Ditto for a definition of "float zero".

Apparently, it thinks that a float/double with 0.0 in it is equivalent to 
zero, but a constant "0.0" is not.  ???

-- 
Kenneth Brody

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23446

Le 20/07/12 15:21, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> Hi folks!
>
> Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
>      0.0 ? 1 : 0
>
> With gcc 4.3/Linux, the result is 0. With Visual C++2010, the result
> is.. 1.
>
> Is the result undefined by the standard, by chance ?
>
>
> Regards,
> Xavier Roche

The bug is at the level of the compile-time interpretation since the 
result is not calculated at run time (even without aptimizations!)

cl -FA bug.c yields this code:

; Listing generated by Microsoft (R) Optimizing Compiler Version 
16.00.30319.01

include listing.inc

INCLUDELIB LIBCMT
INCLUDELIB OLDNAMES

_DATA   SEGMENT
$SG2584 DB      '???', 00H
         ORG $+4
$SG2585 DB      '0.0 ? ??? : OK = %s', 0aH, 00H
_DATA   ENDS
PUBLIC  main
EXTRN   printf:PROC
pdata   SEGMENT
$pdata$main DD  imagerel $LN3
         DD      imagerel $LN3+30
         DD      imagerel $unwind$main
pdata   ENDS
xdata   SEGMENT
$unwind$main DD 010401H
         DD      04204H
; Function compile flags: /Odtp
xdata   ENDS
_TEXT   SEGMENT
main    PROC
; File d:\lcc\bug.c
; Line 3
$LN3:
         sub     rsp, 40                                 ; 00000028H
; Line 4
         lea     rdx, OFFSET FLAT:$SG2584
         lea     rcx, OFFSET FLAT:$SG2585
         call    printf
; Line 5
         xor     eax, eax
         add     rsp, 40                                 ; 00000028H
         ret     0
main    ENDP
_TEXT   ENDS
END

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23448

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>>Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
>>0.0 ? 1 : 0
>
>   An expression does not return. A function may return. After
>
> int f(){ return 0.0 ? 1 : 0; {
>
>   , we can say that f »shall return 0.0 ? 1 : 0«.

An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)

I agree that it's not strictly correct to say that an expression
returns a value, but the intended meaning is clear enough.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23469

Keith Thompson wrote:
> 
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> > Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> >>Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
> >>0.0 ? 1 : 0
> >
> >   An expression does not return. A function may return. After
> >
> > int f(){ return 0.0 ? 1 : 0; {
> >
> >   , we can say that f »shall return 0.0 ? 1 : 0«.
> 
> An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
> standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
> some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)

Section "6.5 Expressions" in both C89 and in C99, 
described the bitwise operators as returning values.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23473

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> > Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>> >>Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
>> >>0.0 ? 1 : 0
>> >
>> >   An expression does not return. A function may return. After
>> >
>> > int f(){ return 0.0 ? 1 : 0; {
>> >
>> >   , we can say that f »shall return 0.0 ? 1 : 0«.
>> 
>> An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
>> standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
>> some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)
>
> Section "6.5 Expressions" in both C89 and in C99, 
> described the bitwise operators as returning values.

C99 says they "return" values; N1256 says they "yield" values,
as does N1570 (the C11 pre-release draft).

None of the three Technical Corrigenda (which in theory constitute
the difference between C99 and N1256) contain the word "yield".
I think the editor, Larry Jones, just made the change himself.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23502

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> > Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >> > Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> >> >>Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
> >> >>0.0 ? 1 : 0
> >> >
> >> >   An expression does not return. A function may return. After
> >> >
> >> > int f(){ return 0.0 ? 1 : 0; {
> >> >
> >> >   , we can say that f »shall return 0.0 ? 1 : 0«.
> >> 
> >> An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
> >> standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
> >> some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)
> >
> > Section "6.5 Expressions" in both C89 and in C99, 
> > described the bitwise operators as returning values.
> 
> C99 says they "return" values; N1256 says they "yield" values,
> as does N1570 (the C11 pre-release draft).
> 
> None of the three Technical Corrigenda (which in theory constitute
> the difference between C99 and N1256) contain the word "yield".
> I think the editor, Larry Jones, just made the change himself.

Not just that, but he disclosed that here after a discussion
almost identical to this one. IIRC.

Whilst I think it's good to wean people off inappropriate use of
"return", I don't think it's worth making too big a thing of, at
least if the question has been understood by everyone who didn't
deliberately want to be adversarial.

Phil
-- 
> I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God.
Pics or it didn't happen.
-- Tom (/. uid 822)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23522

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:

> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> > Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>>> >>Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
>>> >>0.0 ? 1 : 0
>>> >
>>> >   An expression does not return. A function may return. After
>>> >
>>> > int f(){ return 0.0 ? 1 : 0; {
>>> >
>>> >   , we can say that f  >>shall return 0.0 ? 1 : 0 <<.
>>> 
>>> An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
>>> standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
>>> some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)
>>
>> Section "6.5 Expressions" in both C89 and in C99, 
>> described the bitwise operators as returning values.
>
> C99 says they "return" values; N1256 says they "yield" values,
> as does N1570 (the C11 pre-release draft).  [snip]

Yes, and N1124 is like N1256 in this regard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23521 — Re: expressions, evaluations, and values (was: What shall return "0.0 ? 1 : 0" ?)

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>An expression *yields* a value. (I think earlier versions of the
>>standard used the word "return" for the results of expressions in
>>some places; as far as I know it's been cleaned up.)
>
>   I'd say that an expression /had/ a value (and that an /evaluation/
>   yielded a value). Let me try to find quotations in N1570:
>
>       >>Its lifetime begins when the expression is evaluated
>       and its initial value is the value of the expression.<<
>                                    -----------------------
>       >>An actual implementation need not evaluate part of an
>       expression if it can deduce that its value is not used
>       and that no needed side effects are produced<<
>
>       >>the value of CHAR_MIN<<
>
>       >>expressions with implementation-defined values<<
>
>       >>Its lifetime begins when the expression is evaluated
>       and its initial value is the value of the expression.<<
>
>       >>If an expression of any other type is evaluated as a
>       void expression, its value or designator is discarded.<<
>
>   The relationship between an expression and its value in all
>   these quotes (selected without bias) is always /possessive/,
>   hence /has/.  [snip]

There are also lots of places where the Standard uses phrasing like
'an expression yields the value ...' or 'x[3][5] yields ...'.
Generally speaking the Standard often doesn't do a good job of
observing the distinction between translation-time properties and
execution-time properties.  Strictly speaking, an expression is a
translation-time entity;  it is only an evaulation of an expression
that has (or yields) a value, or evaluating an expression that yields
a value.  Some expressions have the property that every time they are
evaluated the evaluations always yield the same value, and there it
might be more defensible to say that the expression /has/ that value.
But I don't think the Standard itself is careful about these
distinctions one way or the other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#23450

Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> Is there a C standard expert who can confirm what shall return
> 	0.0 ? 1 : 0
>
> With gcc 4.3/Linux, the result is 0. With Visual C++2010, the result is.. 1.
>
> Is the result undefined by the standard, by chance ?

As other responses have said, the result is well defined, and this
appears to be a bug in Visual C++ 2010.

I just tried this program:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
    printf("%d\n", 0.0 ? 1 : 0);
    if (0.0) {
        puts("0.0 is true");
    }
    else {
        puts("0.0 is false");
    }
    if (0.0 == 0) {
        puts("0.0 compares equal to 0");
    }
    else {
        puts("0.0 does not compare equal to 0");
    }
    return 0;
}

With gcc, the output is:

0
0.0 is false
0.0 compares equal to 0

With Visual Studio, the output is:

1
0.0 is false
0.0 compares equal to 0

with the language set to C and extensions disabled.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web