Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24707 > unrolled thread
| Started by | lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 192 — 45 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 10:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2012-08-22 19:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-22 11:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 14:22 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 18:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-22 12:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-22 20:45 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-22 22:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:43 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:14 +0200
[OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-22 13:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-23 00:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2012-08-23 09:48 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 15:56 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 10:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 08:32 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 14:49 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded fmassei@gmail.com - 2012-08-23 08:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-23 17:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:41 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:42 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2012-08-23 17:43 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 18:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:21 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-03 16:55 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:36 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:05 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:56 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-29 21:10 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:40 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:15 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-24 09:52 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 07:51 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-22 17:43 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-23 20:17 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 15:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 17:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 19:02 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 20:53 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:33 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 08:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:08 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-24 21:37 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:13 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-23 10:09 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-23 13:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 09:06 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 11:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:45 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:40 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:01 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:03 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:11 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 11:46 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 12:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 09:35 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:28 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:00 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 14:23 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 15:02 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 22:00 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:50 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:20 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-25 17:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 18:49 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:23 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:30 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 02:23 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 18:02 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 09:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 13:35 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 02:10 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 15:59 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 17:26 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:21 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-25 15:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-25 21:36 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-06 14:41 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:13 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 11:12 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:37 +0300
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-09-07 19:22 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 00:28 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 11:15 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 17:33 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-08-26 18:59 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:07 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-22 22:37 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-22 15:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2012-08-22 22:26 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-23 02:07 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:42 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-23 00:54 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 16:16 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@sacrideo.us> - 2012-08-23 13:10 -0500
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 13:58 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-24 23:12 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-08-25 21:35 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-25 14:59 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-26 12:34 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2012-08-25 23:52 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201208.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-08-30 03:18 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 13:41 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:23 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 10:55 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 03:14 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:18 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 20:06 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:04 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 00:19 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 01:33 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:26 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 07:36 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 17:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 06:15 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 12:27 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 19:11 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 13:38 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 21:54 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 21:56 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 16:09 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-27 22:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:25 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 18:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 18:45 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 19:24 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:00 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 01:27 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:20 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:55 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:43 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:01 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-27 23:16 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 17:34 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 03:16 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:07 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:17 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:40 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 00:59 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net> - 2012-09-03 00:31 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 08:31 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 09:13 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 15:38 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 18:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-09-03 17:04 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Herbert Rosenau <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2012-09-03 21:48 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-03 23:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700
Re: GCC is re-implementing in C++ and C discarded James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 19:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k23evf$mq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25860 |
On 9/3/12 5:41 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote:
> Am 03.09.2012 21:48, schrieb Herbert Rosenau:
>> Am 02.09.2012 00:59, schrieb Jens Gustedt:
>>> Am 31.08.2012 23:40, schrieb lawrence.jones@siemens.com:
>>>> Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But it says so implicitly. Prototypes are defined semantically
>>>>> (6.2.1p2), not through syntax: a declaration of a function that
>>>>> declares the types of its parameters. "void foo() { }" perfectly fits
>>>>> in here, it is a definition and it specifies the number and type of
>>>>> its parameters, namely none.
>>>>
>>>> It's always been understood that a declaration of a function has to use
>>>> a parameter-type-list to declare the types of its parameters;
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, why did the term prototype then never make it to a
>>> syntactical definition? Do you agree with me that if we stick together
>>> the current text as it stands we have that
>>>
>>> - "void foo() { }" is a defintion of "foo"
>>> - it is also a declaration
>>> - it declares that "foo" has no parameters
>>
>> No, it declares foo as a function with an unknown nuber of parameters
>> with onkown rypes each.
>
> How do you come to that "no". In 6.7.6.3p14 it says
>
>> An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of
>> that function specifies that the function has no parameters.
>
> so you are making the difference that a function "declarator" here
> only "specifies" that the function has no parameters but the
> declarator doesn't "declare" that it has no parameters?
>
> Honestly, I am lost, linguistically.
>
> I think term prototype should have been also defined by syntax,
> perhaps in 6.2.5p20 where function types are introduced or even better
> 6.7.6.3p5 where a simple phrase could be added at the end:
>
> > Only if it is of the form D( parameter-type-list ) the declaration
> > provides a prototype for the function.
>
> Jens
>
The key is that there are several levels of "declaring" a function. All
of the following provide a declaration.
int f1();
int f2(void);
int f3(i);
int f4(int i);
int f5() { return 0; }
int f6(void) { return 0;)
int f7(i) int i; { return i;}
int f8(int i) { return i; }
The even ones of these provide a prototype for fn, and will require a
diagnostic if called with an incorrect parameter. The odd fn do not
provide a prototype, and incorrect calls do not need a diagnostic.
f5-f8 provide definitions for fn, f1-f4 just are declarations,
presumable with a definition elsewhere if the function is called.
f5 has a definition that says that f5 is a function with 0 parameters,
but no prototype, so a later call of f5(1) does not require a
diagnostic, but does invoke undefined behavior if executed.
Note that the definitions that don't provide a prototype (sometimes
called K&R style) are still "valid" syntax, but I believe have been
depreciated. In C++, f1, and f5 are prototypes, and f3 and f7 are
constraint violations (all declarations/definitions provide a prototype
in C++, but not in C).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5045B851.2000805@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25875 |
Am 04.09.2012 01:37, schrieb Richard Damon:
> On 9/3/12 5:41 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>> Am 03.09.2012 21:48, schrieb Herbert Rosenau:
>>> Am 02.09.2012 00:59, schrieb Jens Gustedt:
>>>> Am 31.08.2012 23:40, schrieb lawrence.jones@siemens.com:
>>>>> Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it says so implicitly. Prototypes are defined semantically
>>>>>> (6.2.1p2), not through syntax: a declaration of a function that
>>>>>> declares the types of its parameters. "void foo() { }" perfectly fits
>>>>>> in here, it is a definition and it specifies the number and type of
>>>>>> its parameters, namely none.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's always been understood that a declaration of a function has to use
>>>>> a parameter-type-list to declare the types of its parameters;
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, why did the term prototype then never make it to a
>>>> syntactical definition? Do you agree with me that if we stick together
>>>> the current text as it stands we have that
>>>>
>>>> - "void foo() { }" is a defintion of "foo"
>>>> - it is also a declaration
>>>> - it declares that "foo" has no parameters
>>>
>>> No, it declares foo as a function with an unknown nuber of parameters
>>> with onkown rypes each.
>>
>> How do you come to that "no". In 6.7.6.3p14 it says
>>
>>> An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of
>>> that function specifies that the function has no parameters.
>>
>> so you are making the difference that a function "declarator" here
>> only "specifies" that the function has no parameters but the
>> declarator doesn't "declare" that it has no parameters?
>>
>> Honestly, I am lost, linguistically.
>>
>> I think term prototype should have been also defined by syntax,
>> perhaps in 6.2.5p20 where function types are introduced or even better
>> 6.7.6.3p5 where a simple phrase could be added at the end:
>>
>> > Only if it is of the form D( parameter-type-list ) the declaration
>> > provides a prototype for the function.
>>
>> Jens
>>
>
> The key is that there are several levels of "declaring" a function. All
> of the following provide a declaration.
>
> int f1();
> int f2(void);
> int f3(i);
> int f4(int i);
> int f5() { return 0; }
> int f6(void) { return 0;)
> int f7(i) int i; { return i;}
> int f8(int i) { return i; }
>
> The even ones of these provide a prototype for fn, and will require a
> diagnostic if called with an incorrect parameter. The odd fn do not
> provide a prototype, and incorrect calls do not need a diagnostic.
>
> f5-f8 provide definitions for fn, f1-f4 just are declarations,
> presumable with a definition elsewhere if the function is called.
>
> f5 has a definition that says that f5 is a function with 0 parameters,
> but no prototype, so a later call of f5(1) does not require a
> diagnostic, but does invoke undefined behavior if executed.
>
> Note that the definitions that don't provide a prototype (sometimes
> called K&R style) are still "valid" syntax, but I believe have been
> depreciated. In C++, f1, and f5 are prototypes, and f3 and f7 are
> constraint violations (all declarations/definitions provide a prototype
> in C++, but not in C).
Hm, I don't see what you are adding to the discussion so far. My point
was just that what constitutes the declaration of a prototype is not
sufficiently clear in the standard. You are just repeating the "common
belief" and not pointing out why f5 wouldn't be declaring one. (Please
look through the previous messages to see why I found that there is an
ambiguity, I noted it several times already.)
My point in the message that you are refering to was that the standard
would need such a clarification, and I was proposing a snippet that
would be sufficient to clarify this.
Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn627plxwk.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #25860 |
Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes:
> Am 03.09.2012 21:48, schrieb Herbert Rosenau:
>> Am 02.09.2012 00:59, schrieb Jens Gustedt:
>>> Am 31.08.2012 23:40, schrieb lawrence.jones@siemens.com:
>>>> Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But it says so implicitly. Prototypes are defined semantically
>>>>> (6.2.1p2), not through syntax: a declaration of a function that
>>>>> declares the types of its parameters. "void foo() { }" perfectly fits
>>>>> in here, it is a definition and it specifies the number and type of
>>>>> its parameters, namely none.
>>>>
>>>> It's always been understood that a declaration of a function has to use
>>>> a parameter-type-list to declare the types of its parameters;
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, why did the term prototype then never make it to a
>>> syntactical definition? Do you agree with me that if we stick together
>>> the current text as it stands we have that
>>>
>>> - "void foo() { }" is a defintion of "foo"
>>> - it is also a declaration
>>> - it declares that "foo" has no parameters
>>
>> No, it declares foo as a function with an unknown nuber of parameters
>> with onkown rypes each.
>
> How do you come to that "no". In 6.7.6.3p14 it says
>
>> An empty list in a function declarator that is part of a definition of
>> that function specifies that the function has no parameters.
>
> so you are making the difference that a function "declarator" here
> only "specifies" that the function has no parameters but the
> declarator doesn't "declare" that it has no parameters?
This is a settled question: asked in a Defect Report, and the
response is that this case does not provide a prototype. That
might not be the answer you want, but that's the answer.
> Honestly, I am lost, linguistically.
>
> I think term prototype should have been also defined by syntax,
> perhaps in 6.2.5p20 where function types are introduced or even better
> 6.7.6.3p5 where a simple phrase could be added at the end:
I can't say I agree, but in any case if you want to do something
about it then further comments should be addressed to people
in WG14 (aka "the committee"). Since the question has been
asked and answered through a DR, and no changes have been
made to the text of the Standard, there isn't really anything
people in the newsgroup can do for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 01:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1h7i4$l44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25158 |
Keith Thompson wrote:
> ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> writes:
>> Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> This one, I argue, is strictly conforming (its behavior would be
>>> undefined if the call were executed).
>>>
>>> int main() {
>>> if (0) main(42);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>
>> Which language is this? There's some doubt about whether "int main()" is
>> valid in a hosted C implementation (although it seems to work well in
>> practice), and although it's legal in C++, the recursive call to main is
>> illegal in C++, so the program still doesn't conform properly.
>
> It's C, of course; I rarely post C++ code in comp.lang.c.
> Recursive calls to main() are legal in C.
Right; in a thread that is discussing both C and C++ (and has had many
examples of both to compare), it's less clear.
> What do you mean by "valid"? If you mean that it's a constraint
> violation, requiring a diagnostic, I disagree, and I'll ask you
> to cite the standard to support your claim. If you mean that the
> behavior is undefined, that's the point we're debating.
I think I was thinking about strict conformance, more than anything
else. And I missed that 5.1.2.2.1 is placing a requirement on
definitions, not on declarations.
[snip]
> My argument is that `int main(){}` and `int main(void){}` are *not*
> equivalent definitions, since the latter provides a prototype and
> the former does not. And therefore any program that defines `main`
> as `int main()` has undefined behavior according to the current
> wording (but perhaps not the intent) of the C standard -- unless the
> implementation explicitly documents that it permits `int main(){}`,
> as provided by the phrase "or in some other implementation-defined
> manner" at the end of 5.1.1.2.2.1p1.
I've sort-of changed my mind on this when writing this post. 5.1.2.2.1p1
is placing requirements on the definition of main. 5.1.2.2.1p2 is
putting separate requirements on the declaration. If you write `int
main() { }`, that's both a definition and a declaration; the definition
seems to be equivalent to the definition with an explicit `void`, and
the declaration is clearly different, due to the lack of a prototype.
So the question boils down to whether a prototype is part of a
definition. It clearly matters sometimes, because if there's no
prototype, integers smaller than ints get widened to ints (and then
narrowed again, if declared narrower and you aren't in a varargs
function): 6.5.2.2p6. (And prototypeless functions are still around even
in C11.)
--
ais523
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <PNKdnd0q44tws6PNnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@bestweb.net> |
| In reply to | #25158 |
On 8/27/2012 8:34 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
> Removing `main` from the debate for a moment, clearly the following
> function definition is valid:
>
> void foo() { }
>
> But does this function definition:
>
> void foo() {
> if (0) foo(42);
> }
>
> require a diagnostic?
Well, if it does, then my C compiler is not conforming, as it makes no such
complaint, even with warnings turned to the max. (Well, with max warnings,
it does give one about "conditional expression is constant".)
Note that using "void foo(void)...", I do get a warning, even with the
default warning level.
--
Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1hadf$1si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25144 |
On 08/27/2012 06:20 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes:
>> Am 27.08.2012 21:48, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri:
>>> That's the point. If you say that "int main(void)" is equivalent to
>>> "int main()" then you are saying that it is also equivalent to
>>> "int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)" or "int main(int argc)",
>>> but I'm not convinced that compilers are obliged to support all these
>>> definitions.
>>
>> No "int main()" is equivalent to "int main(void)" for
>> definitions. There is this extra rule for definitions (versus just
>> declarations) such that these two are equivalent.
>
> Definitions also provide declarations.
>
> This program contains a constraint violation:
>
> int main(void) {
> if (0) main(42);
> return 0;
> }
>
> This one, I argue, is strictly conforming (its behavior would be
> undefined if the call were executed).
>
> int main() {
> if (0) main(42);
> return 0;
> }
>
> Thus the two definitions are not equivalent, unless you use a rather
> loose definition of the word "equivalent".
>
> On the other hand, I believe it was *intended* for `int main()` to be
> valid; requiring the `void` keyword would have broken existing pre-ANSI
> code.
>
> But `int main(void)` (if you don't need argc and argv) is better for
> newly written C programs.
I knew of your arguments for this interpretation, and I'm not sure that
you're wrong (though I wish you were). However, the original context of
this subthread was an assertion that this issue constituted an
incompatibility between C and C++. The issue doesn't come up in C++, and
while your arguments seem reasonable, I don't believe that many (any?)
actual implementations of C treat this code in a way incompatible with
the way C++ treats it. While it might, in theory, be a potential
incompatibility, it is not a real one.
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 21:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1j8l2$3ah$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25111 |
Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not, > even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say > that it is not the "most portable" way to define main. Maybe you are thinking about C++ programs written for a freestanding environment. Anyhow, if you need to define main(), you either define it as int main() or int main(int argc, char *argv[]). Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 01:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <TDc%r.202940$GZ3.161599@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25291 |
Il 28/08/2012 22:11, Rui Maciel ha scritto: > Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > >> I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not, >> even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say >> that it is not the "most portable" way to define main. > > Maybe you are thinking about C++ programs written for a freestanding > environment. Anyhow, if you need to define main(), you either define it as > int main() or int main(int argc, char *argv[]). > I was only referring to the C language there. Thanks however for your explanation :) -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr4qqy2ri.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25291 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Vincenzo Mercuri wrote:
>> I think it is implementation-defined whether it is supported or not,
>> even though almost all the implementations do support it. But I'd say
>> that it is not the "most portable" way to define main.
>
> Maybe you are thinking about C++ programs written for a freestanding
> environment. Anyhow, if you need to define main(), you either define it as
> int main() or int main(int argc, char *argv[]).
For C++:
It shall have a return type of type int, but otherwise its type is
implementation-defined. All implementations shall allow both of the
following definitions of main:
int main() { /* ... */ }
and
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { /* ... */ }
So those are the only two *portable* forms, but others are permitted
if the implementation supports them. There's even a note: "It
is recommended that any further (optional) parameters be added
after argv."
And of course C has the "or in some other implementation-defined
manner" clause.
--
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]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 18:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503BA34A.805@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25100 |
Am 27.08.2012 16:36, schrieb lovecreatesbeauty:
> I'm dumb. I meant in my previous message the following is valid C++ but illegal C.
>
> int main() { /* ... */ }
That is not so clear that it is illegal in C. The rules for
definitions of functions are more relaxed than those for pure
declarations. An empty list in a definition means that the function
doesn't receive any arguments, which is in accordance with one of the
two prototypes that are foreseen for main.
int foo(void);
and
int foo() { /* ... */ }
are compatible, I think.
So there is not really a problem here.
Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzk5gasyi.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25095 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 08/27/2012 03:19 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:04:57 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
>> I saw some C++ code like :)
>>
>> void main()
>> {
>> /*...*/
>> }
>
[snip]
>
> I don't see any relevant differences between the two languages in this
> regard. Could you explain more fully how this constitutes an example of
> incompatibility between C and C++?
C++, unlike C, requires main to return int, even for
implementation-defined definitions.
--
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]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1hb41$59v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25141 |
On 08/27/2012 06:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>> On 08/27/2012 03:19 AM, lovecreatesbeauty wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 27, 2012 4:04:57 AM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>>> I saw some C++ code like :)
>>>
>>> void main()
>>> {
>>> /*...*/
>>> }
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> I don't see any relevant differences between the two languages in this
>> regard. Could you explain more fully how this constitutes an example of
>> incompatibility between C and C++?
>
> C++, unlike C, requires main to return int, even for
> implementation-defined definitions.
True. That doesn't strike me as a good example of a C/C++
incompatibility, since relying upon implementation-defined alternative
definitions of main is sufficient to allow incompatibility even between
two different compilers for the same language.
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web