Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #24771 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 386 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:05 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-23 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 12:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 14:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 09:33 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 13:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Daniel Weber <usenet@daniel-weber.eu> - 2012-08-24 13:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-26 02:22 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 00:19 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ozbear@bigpond.com (ozbear) - 2012-08-27 00:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 13:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language CRNG <Spam@uce.gov> - 2012-08-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 18:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-23 15:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:04 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-23 19:14 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 11:35 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 21:03 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 18:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 21:08 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:41 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 02:58 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 15:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 06:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-23 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-24 00:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Leo Havmøller <rtxleh@nospam.nospam> - 2012-08-24 09:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-24 09:53 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 03:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-24 15:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:43 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 03:30 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:11 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:10 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 02:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 10:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 02:59 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:28 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-25 07:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 12:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-25 05:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:22 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 11:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:31 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 01:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-25 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-25 22:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 10:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 04:27 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-01 11:35 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 00:52 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:21 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:59 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 22:55 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 00:45 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:17 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-24 06:33 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-25 23:58 -0600
Alternatives to Windows APIs in Metro style apps "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-24 04:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-24 12:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 01:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-27 20:58 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 17:12 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:25 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 15:35 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:13 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-28 01:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 23:26 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 09:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> - 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language rashid <nospam@nospam.com> - 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> - 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 02:40 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:43 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-08-30 03:37 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 14:20 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 06:39 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 22:51 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 01:04 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 12:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 17:26 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 08:50 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-31 12:46 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-08-31 20:17 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-31 14:41 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-01 00:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:48 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> - 2012-09-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 17:07 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Paul J Gans <gansno@panix.com> - 2012-09-03 02:15 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 22:10 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-03 10:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 12:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 12:16 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 12:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2012-09-04 20:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 19:34 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-04 16:46 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Edek Pienkowski <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 08:26 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 13:40 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 15:30 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 16:05 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 17:01 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 17:21 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 21:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-03 00:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:06 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:07 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-02 18:36 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-02 20:38 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 20:00 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-09-03 11:52 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 12:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 12:41 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:08 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 11:54 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 20:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 08:55 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-04 09:25 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:50 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 19:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 22:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-04 22:09 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-05 07:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:30 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:13 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-06 15:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 00:42 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 11:28 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:44 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 18:59 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 01:10 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 05:18 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 14:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 07:16 -0700
Re: Reâ: â¬Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 17:39 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 10:21 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-08 22:29 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-08 15:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-09 00:24 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 20:47 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-06 17:22 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 13:12 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2012-09-06 08:51 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 19:40 +0300
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 22:46 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:02 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:49 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:13 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-10 22:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-07 07:18 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-06 21:11 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-06 16:57 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-07 02:27 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-06 15:40 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-08 09:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-08 01:23 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-10 10:48 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 21:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-09-02 12:55 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:44 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Don't make my brown eyes China Blue <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-01 21:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-03 02:04 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 19:07 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-08-31 11:57 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-31 11:05 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:10 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:54 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-30 08:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:57 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-28 21:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language ais523 <ais523@bham.ac.uk> - 2012-08-28 22:07 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 09:40 +1200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 01:01 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 22:26 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 16:48 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language timprince <tprince@computer.org> - 2012-08-25 23:20 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-25 20:55 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 02:24 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 10:45 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Tim Prince <tprince@nospamcomputer.org> - 2012-08-26 11:01 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:53 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:46 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 08:52 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 01:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 11:24 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 04:07 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 13:09 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 09:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 16:36 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 22:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 13:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 10:03 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:12 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 11:22 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 12:54 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:34 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:26 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 02:53 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:36 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-02 03:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 04:37 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:16 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:02 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 15:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2012-08-26 15:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:35 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:38 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 10:56 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 02:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-27 20:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 10:51 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-28 03:52 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-08-28 12:47 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 18:25 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language s0suk3@gmail.com - 2012-08-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-26 11:06 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:01 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 07:33 -0400
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 00:13 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-26 11:17 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-26 14:22 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 22:30 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-26 22:43 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 00:32 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 01:02 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:42 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:00 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-08-28 10:49 +0100
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:14 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 04:18 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:56 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 03:40 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-27 04:05 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 15:13 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:47 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:16 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 01:48 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 14:10 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 17:14 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 01:45 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-02 02:54 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:45 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-27 23:28 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-08-27 13:58 -0500
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-28 00:20 -0600
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:24 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-27 00:48 +0000
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-13 19:46 +0200
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Microsoft abandons the C language Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-13 20:39 +0000
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 03:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca52314b-e892-4727-b67b-565059ce1141@d9g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25739 |
On Sep 2, 8:59 am, Jens Gustedt <jens.gust...@loria.fr> wrote: > Am 02.09.2012 07:26, schrieb Anse: > > > I > > ah, so you got yourself a new alias, suspected that you would come up > with something like this. Good to know that these tow are the same. > > > was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter? > > ah, so your statement was ironic? Is that it? You were joking? > > > Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with? Oh wait, don't tell > > me, I've just run into Ted Nugent? Guitar "hero" still trying to > > make good on adolescnt wanking Ted? > > sorry, I am not able to follow you here. English is neither my native > tongue nor culture. I suspect sanity isn't his native tongue <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 05:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1vegi$9c7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25745 |
Nick Keighley wrote: > On Sep 2, 8:59 am, Jens Gustedt <jens.gust...@loria.fr> wrote: >> Am 02.09.2012 07:26, schrieb Anse: >> >>> I >> >> ah, so you got yourself a new alias, suspected that you would come up >> with something like this. Good to know that these tow are the same. >> >>> was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter? >> >> ah, so your statement was ironic? Is that it? You were joking? >> >>> Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with? Oh wait, don't tell >>> me, I've just run into Ted Nugent? Guitar "hero" still trying to >>> make good on adolescnt wanking Ted? >> >> sorry, I am not able to follow you here. English is neither my native >> tongue nor culture. > > I suspect sanity isn't his native tongue > I suspect you "I owe you something"? What?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 00:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k20mpt$f4f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25748 |
Le 02/09/12 13:05, Anse a écrit : > Nick Keighley wrote: >> On Sep 2, 8:59 am, Jens Gustedt <jens.gust...@loria.fr> wrote: >>> Am 02.09.2012 07:26, schrieb Anse: >>> >>>> I >>> >>> ah, so you got yourself a new alias, suspected that you would come up >>> with something like this. Good to know that these tow are the same. >>> >>>> was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter? >>> >>> ah, so your statement was ironic? Is that it? You were joking? >>> >>>> Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with? Oh wait, don't tell >>>> me, I've just run into Ted Nugent? Guitar "hero" still trying to >>>> make good on adolescnt wanking Ted? >>> >>> sorry, I am not able to follow you here. English is neither my native >>> tongue nor culture. >> >> I suspect sanity isn't his native tongue >> > > I suspect you "I owe you something"? > What? > > The strategy of this troll is always the same: Just hang a "profound" looking sentence into some posts at random. Obviously there isn't any discussion or hint of any, it is just always the same pattern. He has been trolling in the C++ group too, always with the same tactic. He has no knowledge of anything technical or about software or anything like that, it is just somebody that loves to start insulting people at random and the anonymity of usenet allows to do it with easy. Look at this for instance: "I was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter?" "Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with?" Etc. Meaningless sentences juxtaposed so that they seem to be articulated when in fact they aren't. jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 01:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <219b3d0b-2d59-4704-8e77-7b25e8386065@k17g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25780 |
On Sep 2, 11:32 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: > Le 02/09/12 13:05, Anse a écrit : > > > > > > > Nick Keighley wrote: > >> On Sep 2, 8:59 am, Jens Gustedt <jens.gust...@loria.fr> wrote: > >>> Am 02.09.2012 07:26, schrieb Anse: > > >>>> I > > >>> ah, so you got yourself a new alias, suspected that you would come up > >>> with something like this. Good to know that these tow are the same. > > >>>> was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter? > > >>> ah, so your statement was ironic? Is that it? You were joking? > > >>>> Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with? Oh wait, don't tell > >>>> me, I've just run into Ted Nugent? Guitar "hero" still trying to > >>>> make good on adolescnt wanking Ted? > > >>> sorry, I am not able to follow you here. English is neither my native > >>> tongue nor culture. > > >> I suspect sanity isn't his native tongue > > > I suspect you "I owe you something"? > > What? > > The strategy of this troll is always the same: Just hang a "profound" > looking sentence into some posts at random. Obviously there isn't any > discussion or hint of any, it is just always the same pattern. > > He has been trolling in the C++ group too, always with the same tactic. > > He has no knowledge of anything technical or about software or anything > like that, it is just somebody that loves to start insulting people at > random and the anonymity of usenet allows to do it with easy. > > Look at this for instance: > > "I was trying to help the flailing duck and you call me a hunter?" > "Aren't you the one who shot him to begin with?" > > Etc. Meaningless sentences juxtaposed so that they seem to be > articulated when in fact they aren't. poorly written bot maybe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 01:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a7f2382-e756-45c0-8a20-2dcf935222d3@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25150 |
On Aug 28, 12:13 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: > Le 28/08/12 00:35, Keith Thompson a écrit : > > > here's > > a quotation from the ISO C99 standard: > > > This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition, ISO/IEC > > 9899:1990, as amended and corrected by ISO/IEC 9899/COR1:1994, > > ISO/IEC 9899/AMD1:1995, and ISO/IEC 9899/COR2:1996. > > Interesting Mr Thompson. > > I remember that I cited the same paragraph in this same group some > years ago, and I was flamed by Mr Heathfield and the other regulars > that maintained that "standard c" means C90 (As microsoft does now). > > Well, better late than never! > > P.S. > Specifically here is a message that I wrote around November 28, 2009, > and your answer below: > > > > > > »This second edition cancels and replaces the first > > > edition, ISO/IEC 9899:1990, as amended and corrected by > > > ISO/IEC 9899/COR1:1994, ISO/IEC 9899/AMD1:1995, and > > > ISO/IEC 9899/COR2:1996.« > > > > > ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) > > > > > This means that C is the language specified by ISO/IEC > > > 9899:1999 (E). »ISO/IEC 9899:1990« is canceled. > > > > In theory, yes. In practice, conforming C90 compilers are still > > much more common than conforming C99 compilers. Many compilers > > implement large parts of C99, but others, still in common use, > > implement almost none of it (more precisely, almost none of the > > differences between C90 and C99). I see no flame. Which part of that is factually wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-27 22:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1hhbp$ibk$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25140 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > [Dropping comp.compilers.lcc, since this has nothing to do with the > lcc or lcc-win compiler] > > rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:03 +0200, Jens Gustedt wrote: >>> Am 25.08.2012 23:09, schrieb rashid: >>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:20 +0200, jacob navia wrote: >>>>> This is a long story. It starts years ago since windows 3.1 and it >>>>> ends now, with "Metro". >>> >>>> MS is a great friend of C. >>> >>> such a great friend that they refused to support the successive >>> standards since 1999 >> >> Sorry this is garbage. MSVC supports all C/C++ standards, also extra >> features (eg C++ style // comments will be accepted in C programs >> too) > > You are mistaken. MSVS's support for C90 is reasonably good; their > support for C99 and C11 is nearly nonexistent, and deliberately so. > Time out!! What does that mean?! "deliberately so". Is that an accusation? Or a just a little boy throwing rocks?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rashid <nospam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1j2eg$hi4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25140 |
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:03:17 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:
> #include <stdbool.h>
> #include <complex.h>
> #include <stdint.h>
>
> inline void foo(uint32_t *restrict p) { }
>
> int main(void) {
> bool b = false;
> int size = 20;
> uint32_t vla[size];
> double complex x;
> foo(vla);
> return 0;
> }
>
> I don't know how well MSVC supports the various versions of the C++
> standard. My guess (and it's no more than that) is that they're working
> on C++11 support.
Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. You probably use an extension
language with all this strange stuff. For example, in C you cannot have
vla[size] where size is a variable. You must do
#define size 20
instead.
Maybe in high level languages like PERL you can do that.
> [...]
>
>>> There is no such thing like C/C++.
>>
>> ??? Are you a crazy? Or you only use JAVA? __Most__ modern software
>> development relies on C/C++.
>
> Perhaps this is just a confusion about terminology.
No, I don't think so. You name any common modern sofware - Excel or
Acrobat or Skype or Firefox or anything - it is ALL coded mainly in C/C++.
I feel like people in this forum operate, using a set of rules I don't
understand. Like a parallel universe!
>> No you are the joking clown, you and all the MS haters. You want the
>> Linux? Go and use the Linux and be happy. But please do not spread
>> stupid lies about MS.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Even if you're right, you really should be more polite. Being
> simultaneously rude and wrong is not good for your reputation here.
Sorry but if someone deliberately spreads lies, I will politely call him
out on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 20:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87fw76kgp8.fsf@huddi.jernurt.dk> |
| In reply to | #25268 |
rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: > Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for sure. > You probably use an extension language with all this strange > stuff. For example, in C you cannot have vla[size] where size is a > variable. You must do #define size 20 instead. VLA's have been part of C since C99. Have you been living under a rock for the past 13 years? .. > Sorry but if someone deliberately spreads lies, I will politely call > him out on it. I'll get the popcorn going, while I wait to see what Nemesis have prepared for you. -- /Wegge Leder efter redundant peering af dk.*,linux.debian.*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fpgvg9-379.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> |
| In reply to | #25271 |
Anders Wegge Keller <wegge@wegge.dk> wrote: > rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: > > Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. > To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, > but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for > sure. > > You probably use an extension language with all this strange > > stuff. For example, in C you cannot have vla[size] where size is a > > variable. You must do #define size 20 instead. > VLA's have been part of C since C99. Have you been living under a > rock for the past 13 years? If I were a betting man, I'd wager rashid is trolling, perhaps in tandem with ansel. There are, like, a gazillion (roughly speaking) posts in the past week concerning VLAs. It's actually a compliment, because the alternative to trolling would be that rashid made a very silly remark, indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503D17CA.5020105@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25271 |
Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: > rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. > > To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, > but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for > sure. It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 21:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <U79%r.202896$GZ3.32585@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25282 |
Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: > Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: >> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. >> >> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, >> but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for >> sure. > > It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. > > Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. > What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder whether the Standard can justify such a failure. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 22:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k1j9n0$6rr$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #25290 |
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:39:32 +0200 Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> wrote: > Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: > > Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: > >> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: > >>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. > >> > >> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even > >> C99, but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot > >> say for sure. > > > > It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. > > > > Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. > > > > What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail > when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look > for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder > whether the Standard can justify such a failure. > It will fail only on debug builds because gcc than does not honor inlining. With optimizations it will compile... -- drwx------ 2 bmaxa bmaxa 4096 Aug 28 22:14 .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 23:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xsa%r.202906$GZ3.85418@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25292 |
Il 28/08/2012 22:29, Melzzzzz ha scritto: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:39:32 +0200 > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> wrote: > >> Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: >>> Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: >>>> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >>>>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. >>>> >>>> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even >>>> C99, but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot >>>> say for sure. >>> >>> It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. >>> >>> Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. >>> >> >> What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail >> when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look >> for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder >> whether the Standard can justify such a failure. >> > > It will fail only on debug builds because gcc than does not honor > inlining. With optimizations it will compile... > Compiling with optimizations enabled means forcing inlining. It will also compile defining that function as "static inline" or providing an "extern" declaration and a definition for it. The Standard says that "It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline definition or the external definition". Does the Standard suggest that we should provide both an "inline" and an "external" definition? If yes, that would be "strange". -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 23:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k1jcfr$6rr$3@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #25300 |
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:49 +0200 Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> wrote: > Il 28/08/2012 22:29, Melzzzzz ha scritto: > >> > >> What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail > >> when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look > >> for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder > >> whether the Standard can justify such a failure. > >> > > > > It will fail only on debug builds because gcc than does not honor > > inlining. With optimizations it will compile... > > > > Compiling with optimizations enabled means forcing inlining. It will > also compile defining that function as "static inline" or providing > an "extern" declaration and a definition for it. The Standard says > that "It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline > definition or the external definition". Does the Standard suggest that > we should provide both an "inline" and an "external" definition? > If yes, that would be "strange". > Agreed, this is bug in gcc/clang. g++ links happily inline functions with debug build, so it must be bug in c backend as they are different in gcc. -- drwx------ 2 bmaxa bmaxa 4096 Aug 28 23:12 .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 23:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <RIa%r.202916$GZ3.84224@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25303 |
Il 28/08/2012 23:16, Melzzzzz ha scritto: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:09:49 +0200 > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> wrote: > >> Il 28/08/2012 22:29, Melzzzzz ha scritto: >>>> >>>> What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail >>>> when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look >>>> for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder >>>> whether the Standard can justify such a failure. >>>> >>> >>> It will fail only on debug builds because gcc than does not honor >>> inlining. With optimizations it will compile... >>> >> >> Compiling with optimizations enabled means forcing inlining. It will >> also compile defining that function as "static inline" or providing >> an "extern" declaration and a definition for it. The Standard says >> that "It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline >> definition or the external definition". Does the Standard suggest that >> we should provide both an "inline" and an "external" definition? >> If yes, that would be "strange". >> > > Agreed, this is bug in gcc/clang. g++ links happily > inline functions with debug build, so it must be bug in c backend > as they are different in gcc. > Mmm.. it looks like another subtle difference between C and C++. Compilation with the Intel Compiler succeeds. I can't say about Solaris cc. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 17:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503D36F3.7000204@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25300 |
On 08/28/2012 05:09 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: ... > Compiling with optimizations enabled means forcing inlining. Not necessarily - a sufficiently smart compiler might realize that, depending upon the context, a given piece of code could execute more efficiently if not inlined. > ... It will > also compile defining that function as "static inline" or providing > an "extern" declaration and a definition for it. The Standard says that > "It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline > definition or the external definition". Does the Standard suggest that > we should provide both an "inline" and an "external" definition? > If yes, that would be "strange". It might seem strange, but "it is unspecified" which definition gets called, and you've got serious problems if you don't define the one that actually gets called. Different calls to the same function within a single translation unit could call each; the same call could call a different version each time it's executed. That's the power of "unspecified". I would therefore consider it strongly recommended that you provide both definitions. C's pre-processing statements can be used to ensure that both definitions are equivalent, while actually writing the definition only once. You can also avoid the issue entirely by using "static inline".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 23:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ASa%r.202922$GZ3.103037@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25304 |
Il 28/08/2012 23:24, James Kuyper ha scritto: > On 08/28/2012 05:09 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > ... >> Compiling with optimizations enabled means forcing inlining. > > Not necessarily - a sufficiently smart compiler might realize that, > depending upon the context, a given piece of code could execute more > efficiently if not inlined. Of course, I didn't mean that as a general rule for optimizations. That's true for gcc though. > >> ... It will >> also compile defining that function as "static inline" or providing >> an "extern" declaration and a definition for it. The Standard says that >> "It is unspecified whether a call to the function uses the inline >> definition or the external definition". Does the Standard suggest that >> we should provide both an "inline" and an "external" definition? >> If yes, that would be "strange". > > It might seem strange, but "it is unspecified" which definition gets > called, and you've got serious problems if you don't define the one that > actually gets called. Different calls to the same function within a > single translation unit could call each; the same call could call a > different version each time it's executed. That's the power of > "unspecified". I would therefore consider it strongly recommended that > you provide both definitions. C's pre-processing statements can be used > to ensure that both definitions are equivalent, while actually writing > the definition only once. > Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know :) > You can also avoid the issue entirely by using "static inline". > Indeed, this will always make it compile. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln6282zoi7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25290 |
Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
> Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto:
>> Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller:
>>> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes:
>>>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++.
>>>
>>> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99,
>>> but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for
>>> sure.
>>
>> It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose.
>>
>> Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point.
>>
>
> What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail
> when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look
> for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder
> whether the Standard can justify such a failure.
Changing `inline void foo` to `static inline void foo` avoids
that problem. (I compiled with `gcc -c` before posting; I should
have tried linking as well.)
--
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 | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 23:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <eUa%r.202923$GZ3.107701@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25312 |
Il 28/08/2012 23:37, Keith Thompson ha scritto: > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >> Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: >>> Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: >>>> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >>>>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. >>>> >>>> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, >>>> but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for >>>> sure. >>> >>> It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. >>> >>> Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. >>> >> >> What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail >> when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look >> for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder >> whether the Standard can justify such a failure. > > Changing `inline void foo` to `static inline void foo` avoids > that problem. (I compiled with `gcc -c` before posting; I should > have tried linking as well.) > Yes indeed, thank you. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 00:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503D4315.7030702@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25290 |
Am 28.08.2012 21:39, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri: > Il 28/08/2012 21:11, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: >> Am 28.08.2012 20:35, schrieb Anders Wegge Keller: >>> rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: >>>> Look Keith, most of this is NOT C OR C++. >>> >>> To my untrained eyes, that looks like correct C11. Maybe even C99, >>> but there are some features that I've never used, so I cannot say for >>> sure. >> >> It *is* all valid C99, Keith constructed it like that for a purpose. >> >> Sorry rashid, but you completely missed the point. >> > > What is odd is that both gcc (4.7.1) and clang (3.2) will fail > when linking. They probably choose not to inline, then they look > for an "external symbol" for `foo()' but won't find it. I wonder > whether the Standard can justify such a failure. It does. The point that Keith seems to have missed is that an "inline" definition in C always needs a sort of "instantiation" in just one compilation unit. Adding this one should do the trick: void foo(uint32_t *restrict p); Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web