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 8 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 20 Next page →
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 08:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1l518$4p7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25366 |
On 29-Aug-12 03:54, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: >> Usually when you have an "inline" function, you do not want external >> linkage. As with all functions that you don't explicitly want exported >> from the compile unit, you should add "static". It is very rare to see >> an "inline" function that should not have been declared "static inline". > > Hm, I use inline functions a lot and my mileage seems to be completely > different from yours. > > I have small to medium sized functions in headers as inline, and I > don't want them to be repeated in every compilation unit, so I don't > have them static. I think you (or perhaps your compiler) have this backwards. "extern inline" (or just "inline", since "extern" is default for functions) will create a function body with external linkage _and_ tell the compiler to inline calls. So, if you use this in a header file that is included in ten different source files, you will end up with TEN function bodies with external linkage. "static inline" will NOT create a function body with external linkage, but it still tells the compiler to inline calls. So, if you use this in a header file that is included in ten different source files, you will end up with ZERO function bodies with external linkage. > I use the "instantiation" syntax of C99 to force the generation of the > symbol in exactly one .c file. So I am always sure that everything > will link well together, e.g when I compile without optimization for > debugging (and the compiler doesn't inline) or when I occasionally > take a pointer to the function. AIUI, explicit inline directives are not an "optimization"; if your compiler ignores them, it is not conforming. It is only an "optimization" for the compiler to inline calls (and possibly remove function bodies) when there are NOT any "inline" directives. > AFAKS this model is the reason that the "inline" feature was included > in C. For everything else we could have stayed with "static". To me, > "static inline" makes not much sense since it doesn't bring in > anything new. "static" suppresses the generation of (potentially redundant) function bodies that will never be called. If your compiler ignores valid "inline" directives, then it becomes necessary for ONE of the function definitions to be "extern", so that a function body is generated, but the rest should be "static". S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 15:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <SWo%r.203051$GZ3.71402@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25382 |
Il 29/08/2012 15:21, Stephen Sprunk ha scritto:
[..]
> "extern inline" (or just "inline", since "extern" is default for
> functions)
[..]
This is not correct, in C99-C11 at least. Just "inline" won't specify
external linkage. That's why gcc or clang will fail when linking.
You need to create an "alternative external definition" for that function,
this way:
inline void foo(uint32_t *restrict p){}
extern void foo(uint32_t *restrict p);
or directly define it as:
extern inline void foo(uint32_t *restrict p){}
--
Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 15:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lfp%r.203053$GZ3.101318@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25383 |
Il 29/08/2012 15:37, Vincenzo Mercuri ha scritto: > Il 29/08/2012 15:21, Stephen Sprunk ha scritto: > [..] >> "extern inline" (or just "inline", since "extern" is default for >> functions) > [..] > > This is not correct, in C99-C11 at least. Just "inline" won't specify > external linkage. [..] Sorry, I said it wrong. "inline" alone does specify external linkage, but it does not provide an external definition, so "extern inline" and "inline" are not equivalent. If you reference an "inline function" with external linkage you also must provide an external definition, in the same or another translation unit. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 16:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E26D5.5030201@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25382 |
Am 29.08.2012 15:21, schrieb Stephen Sprunk: > On 29-Aug-12 03:54, Jens Gustedt wrote: >> Hm, I use inline functions a lot and my mileage seems to be completely >> different from yours. >> >> I have small to medium sized functions in headers as inline, and I >> don't want them to be repeated in every compilation unit, so I don't >> have them static. > > I think you (or perhaps your compiler) have this backwards. no, at least if you assume that gcc or clang have it backwards > "extern inline" (or just "inline", since "extern" is default for > functions) will create a function body with external linkage _and_ tell > the compiler to inline calls. So, if you use this in a header file that > is included in ten different source files, you will end up with TEN > function bodies with external linkage. what would then be the purpose of inline? To make no difference at all? > "static inline" will NOT create a function body with external > linkage, nobody said that > but it still tells the compiler to inline calls. as a hint, C11: Making a function an inline function suggests that calls to the function be as fast as possible. The extent to which such suggestions are effective is implementation-defined. > So, if you use this in > a header file that is included in ten different source files, you will > end up with ZERO function bodies with external linkage. If it doesn't do that, you will end up with plenty copies of your function, one for every unit. Not with external linkage, correct, but again, nobody said that. >> I use the "instantiation" syntax of C99 to force the generation of the >> symbol in exactly one .c file. So I am always sure that everything >> will link well together, e.g when I compile without optimization for >> debugging (and the compiler doesn't inline) or when I occasionally >> take a pointer to the function. > > AIUI, explicit inline directives are not an "optimization"; if your > compiler ignores them, it is not conforming. > > It is only an "optimization" for the compiler to inline calls (and > possibly remove function bodies) when there are NOT any "inline" directives. > >> AFAKS this model is the reason that the "inline" feature was included >> in C. For everything else we could have stayed with "static". To me, >> "static inline" makes not much sense since it doesn't bring in >> anything new. > > "static" suppresses the generation of (potentially redundant) function > bodies that will never be called. right, but doesn't supress the generation of redundant function bodies that *get* called. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E2F07.1050609@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25382 |
On 08/29/2012 09:21 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 29-Aug-12 03:54, Jens Gustedt wrote: ... >> Hm, I use inline functions a lot and my mileage seems to be completely >> different from yours. >> >> I have small to medium sized functions in headers as inline, and I >> don't want them to be repeated in every compilation unit, so I don't >> have them static. > > I think you (or perhaps your compiler) have this backwards. > > "extern inline" (or just "inline", since "extern" is default for > functions) will create a function body with external linkage _and_ tell > the compiler to inline calls. So, if you use this in a header file that > is included in ten different source files, you will end up with TEN > function bodies with external linkage. No, it does not create an external definition. The 'extern' keyword asserts that there is an external definition, giving the compiler permission to try to call it, but the external definition itself must be provided separately. Where that function definition is provided, at least one declaration of that function in the same translation unit must omit both the 'extern' and 'inline' keywords - otherwise, it would provide an 'inline definition' (6.7.4p7), and would therefore NOT provide an external definition (6.9p5). The most reasonable thing is for the declaration with this characteristic be the one that occurs at the start of the external definition, but that's not actually required by the standard (which seems a little odd to me). >> I use the "instantiation" syntax of C99 to force the generation of the >> symbol in exactly one .c file. So I am always sure that everything >> will link well together, e.g when I compile without optimization for >> debugging (and the compiler doesn't inline) or when I occasionally >> take a pointer to the function. > > AIUI, explicit inline directives are not an "optimization"; if your > compiler ignores them, it is not conforming. The main defining characteristic of 'inline' keyword is that it "... suggests that calls to the function be as fast as possible." That sounds like a request for optimization to me. Whether or not it is an actual optimization depends upon whether or not the compiler chooses to take that suggestion into consideration. > It is only an "optimization" for the compiler to inline calls (and > possibly remove function bodies) when there are NOT any "inline" directives. 'inline' is a keyword, not a directive. The standard uses the word "directive" only in the context of pre-processing. It's an optimization, whether or not there's an 'inline' keyword, because the compiler always has the option of either inlining a function call, or not inlining it - the 'inline' keyword doesn't change that, it's no more than a suggestion. > "static" suppresses the generation of (potentially redundant) function > bodies that will never be called. No, an implementation is still free to create a separate function bodies, whether or not they ever get called. > If your compiler ignores valid "inline" directives, then it becomes > necessary for ONE of the function definitions to be "extern", so that a > function body is generated, but the rest should be "static". No, if it decides to ignore the 'inline' keyword, the function body it creates must have internal linkage, not external. It does not satisfy the requirement (that might exist due to some other translation unit in the same program) for a function with that name and external linkage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7gshy1z0.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25366 |
Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes:
[...]
> Hm, I use inline functions a lot and my mileage seems to be completely
> different from yours.
>
> I have small to medium sized functions in headers as inline, and I
> don't want them to be repeated in every compilation unit, so I don't
> have them static.
>
> I use the "instantiation" syntax of C99 to force the generation of the
> symbol in exactly one .c file.
[...]
What is this "instantiation" syntax? Can you show an example? (The
word doesn't appear in the standard.)
--
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 | 2012-08-29 14:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E64FB.9010205@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25416 |
On 08/29/2012 02:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> writes: ... >> I use the "instantiation" syntax of C99 to force the generation of the >> symbol in exactly one .c file. > [...] > > What is this "instantiation" syntax? Can you show an example? (The > word doesn't appear in the standard.) I think he's referring to EXAMPLE 1 in 6.7.4p10; I've just posted a message arguing that the example is in error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 07:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k1kuae$r31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25361 |
On 08/29/2012 04:01 AM, David Brown wrote: ... > Usually when you have an "inline" function, you do not want external > linkage. As with all functions that you don't explicitly want exported > from the compile unit, you should add "static". It is very rare to see > an "inline" function that should not have been declared "static inline". When an inline function has external linkage, the compiler has the freedom to choose whether to use the internal definition or the external one. Presumably, the compiler will either a) keep things simple by always making the same choice or b) try to make a context-dependent decision about which definition it would be best to use. Assuming you trust the compiler to make good decisions about such things, giving it that choice should produce code that is no worse than it would have been had the choice not been available, and possibly better. I seldom bother inlining functions, but on the rare occasions when I have done so, it I've gone the external inline route, for that reason. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rashid <nospam@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 20:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1lsd7$765$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25271 |
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:35:31 +0200, Anders Wegge Keller 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. Look, what it is this languages of C11 and C99 what everyone talks about? I never heard of them. C++, sure of course I know. C11 or C22 or Cff... hocus pocus! I am talking about the C language which MSVC++ will compile correctly, and just as portable to Unix or Apple. >> 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? OK, so this is in "C99". I am talking here about C, not any extension language. >> 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. WTF??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 16:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E7D40.9040708@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25436 |
On 08/29/2012 04:00 PM, rashid wrote: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:35:31 +0200, Anders Wegge Keller 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. > > Look, what it is this languages of C11 and C99 what everyone talks about? > I never heard of them. C++, sure of course I know. C11 or C22 or Cff... > hocus pocus! Your lack of awareness of these international standards doesn't make people who are aware of them liars. It just makes you ignorant. Unusually so - virtually anyone paying any attention to C should have heard of C99 many times in the past decade. > I am talking about the C language which MSVC++ will compile correctly, > and just as portable to Unix or Apple. MSVC++ doesn't own that language. ISO does - and ISO doesn't match your prejudices about what constitutes C. ISO C90 is widely portable; I'm not sure what differences there might be between ISO C90 and the language that MSVC++ compiles when it comes closest to being fully conforming to C90. However, if there are any such differences, I can guarantee you that the ISO C90 side of the difference is more widely portable than the MSVC++ side. Fully conforming implementation of C99 are still rare, but code that uses most of the new C99 features can be compiled on every platform you mention - but not by MSVC++. Implementation of C2011 has just barely begun, but it will probably eventually be implemented on all of those same platforms - but almost certainly not by MSVC++. .... >> VLA's have been part of C since C99. Have you been living under a >> rock for the past 13 years? > > OK, so this is in "C99". I am talking here about C, not any extension > language. C now officially means C99. That's what ISO says, and ISO has the right to say so. It's not an extension; the language you refer to is now an officially obsolete version of C (twice over). >>> 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. > > WTF?? He's correctly identifying you as someone suffering from a bad case of hubris <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_%28mythology%29>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 23:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E85C7.5070508@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25444 |
Am 29.08.2012 22:36, schrieb James Kuyper: > Fully conforming implementation of C99 are still rare, but code that > uses most of the new C99 features can be compiled on every platform you > mention - but not by MSVC++. Implementation of C2011 has just barely > begun, no actually, it is already quite advanced. I think clang already implements most of the language features (those that impose extensions of the syntax) and part of the library is also already there. > but it will probably eventually be implemented on all of those > same platforms - but almost certainly not by MSVC++. > C now officially means C99. That's what ISO says, and ISO has the right > to say so. Sorry to correct you :) but no, officially C now means C11. C11 declared C99 obsolete. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 21:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.b5a1f12ebc50e8b40d99.20120829214741BST.87pq69e87m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #25436 |
rashid <nospam@nospam.com> writes: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:35:31 +0200, Anders Wegge Keller 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. > > Look, what it is this languages of C11 and C99 what everyone talks about? > I never heard of them. C++, sure of course I know. C11 or C22 or Cff... > hocus pocus! There's a need to distinguish between the various versions of the C standard. That's all the numbers mean. The language "C" -- unadorned with any numbers -- is, as of a short while ago, defined by a standard that no compiler yet supports. In practice, all people now program in a language that is not C as currently defined by ISO. But there are lots of "not C as currently defined by ISO" languages. > I am talking about the C language which MSVC++ will compile correctly, > and just as portable to Unix or Apple. MS stopped supporting the revisions to the C standard (at least the ones that are not shared with C++) some time ago. The language which MSVC will compile correctly is often called C90 or ANSI C, but MSVC include extensions by default, so in effect the language you are talking about is "C90 plus some other bits". >>> 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? > > OK, so this is in "C99". I am talking here about C, not any extension > language. Without any clarification, "C" is ambiguous. You may know what you mean by C, but in a group where people use lots of different systems and who need to refer to a language in the process of changing, the numbers are a great help. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnligxw6at.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25446 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> There's a need to distinguish between the various versions of the C
> standard. That's all the numbers mean. The language "C" -- unadorned
> with any numbers -- is, as of a short while ago, defined by a standard
> that no compiler yet supports. In practice, all people now program in a
> language that is not C as currently defined by ISO.
*All* people? There's plenty of code being written that's valid
C11, even if it doesn't use all the features of the language (very
few programs use all the features of whatever language they're
written in).
I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with
a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are
none), but I wouldn't make that argument myself. The source code
either is or is not conforming, regardless of what you do with it.
A lot of code does use implementation-defined features not defined
by any version of the standard, but not all of it does.
--
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 | 2012-08-30 03:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <41z%r.203254$GZ3.106020@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25469 |
Il 30/08/2012 02:51, Keith Thompson ha scritto: [..] > I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with > a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are > none) [..] There is a compiler, available only for Windows, that claims to support C11. I've never used it, but if you are interested, it's called "Pelles C": http://www.pellesc.de/ -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvcg1uh7w.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25472 |
Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
> Il 30/08/2012 02:51, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
> [..]
>> I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with
>> a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are
>> none)
> [..]
>
> There is a compiler, available only for Windows, that claims
> to support C11. I've never used it, but if you are interested,
> it's called "Pelles C": http://www.pellesc.de/
Interesting. I installed it and I've been playing around with it. It
doesn't complain about a call to gets(), and I ran into a bug triggered
by:
#include <noreturn.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
(reversing the order avoids the error). Apart from that, I haven't seen
any failure to conform to C11.
So far, I'm impressed.
--
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 | 2012-08-30 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <TxG%r.203297$GZ3.190601@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25499 |
Il 30/08/2012 06:38, Keith Thompson ha scritto: > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >> Il 30/08/2012 02:51, Keith Thompson ha scritto: >> [..] >>> I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with >>> a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are >>> none) >> [..] >> >> There is a compiler, available only for Windows, that claims >> to support C11. I've never used it, but if you are interested, >> it's called "Pelles C": http://www.pellesc.de/ > > Interesting. I installed it and I've been playing around with it. It > doesn't complain about a call to gets(), and I ran into a bug triggered > by: > > #include <noreturn.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > > (reversing the order avoids the error). Apart from that, I haven't seen > any failure to conform to C11. > > So far, I'm impressed. > Oh, haha! Strange way to "support C11". It definitely doesn't, but at least it confirmed being a Beta version (I'd say Alpha, probably). However, thanks for bothering to install it. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr4qove46.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25518 |
Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
> Il 30/08/2012 06:38, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
>>> Il 30/08/2012 02:51, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
>>> [..]
>>>> I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with
>>>> a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are
>>>> none)
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> There is a compiler, available only for Windows, that claims
>>> to support C11. I've never used it, but if you are interested,
>>> it's called "Pelles C": http://www.pellesc.de/
>>
>> Interesting. I installed it and I've been playing around with it. It
>> doesn't complain about a call to gets(), and I ran into a bug triggered
>> by:
>>
>> #include <noreturn.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>> (reversing the order avoids the error). Apart from that, I haven't seen
>> any failure to conform to C11.
>>
>> So far, I'm impressed.
>>
>
> Oh, haha! Strange way to "support C11". It definitely doesn't,
> but at least it confirmed being a Beta version (I'd say Alpha,
> probably). However, thanks for bothering to install it.
What do you mean it "definitely doesn't"? I found two fairly minor
bugs in the implementation, both with easy workarounds. _Noreturn,
_Generic, <threads.h>, _Static_assert, and the various predefined
macros all seem to be ok.
--
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 | 2012-08-30 13:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qwI%r.203369$GZ3.108315@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25520 |
Il 30/08/2012 13:00, Keith Thompson ha scritto: > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >> Il 30/08/2012 06:38, Keith Thompson ha scritto: >>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >>>> Il 30/08/2012 02:51, Keith Thompson ha scritto: >>>> [..] >>>>> I suppose you could say it's not C11 if it's not compiled with >>>>> a conforming C11 compiler (of which, as far as I know, there are >>>>> none) >>>> [..] >>>> >>>> There is a compiler, available only for Windows, that claims >>>> to support C11. I've never used it, but if you are interested, >>>> it's called "Pelles C": http://www.pellesc.de/ >>> >>> Interesting. I installed it and I've been playing around with it. It >>> doesn't complain about a call to gets(), and I ran into a bug triggered >>> by: >>> >>> #include <noreturn.h> >>> #include <stdlib.h> >>> >>> (reversing the order avoids the error). Apart from that, I haven't seen >>> any failure to conform to C11. >>> >>> So far, I'm impressed. >>> >> >> Oh, haha! Strange way to "support C11". It definitely doesn't, >> but at least it confirmed being a Beta version (I'd say Alpha, >> probably). However, thanks for bothering to install it. > > What do you mean it "definitely doesn't"? I found two fairly minor > bugs in the implementation, both with easy workarounds. _Noreturn, > _Generic, <threads.h>, _Static_assert, and the various predefined > macros all seem to be ok. > Sorry, I thought you said it ironically, given the rate at which you found the two bugs mentioned. Good then, I've never used it, but I should give it a try. I think we'd better report any bug through that contact form linked in the homepage. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-30 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmx1cumxm.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25525 |
Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
> Il 30/08/2012 13:00, Keith Thompson ha scritto:
[...]
>> What do you mean it "definitely doesn't"? I found two fairly minor
>> bugs in the implementation, both with easy workarounds. _Noreturn,
>> _Generic, <threads.h>, _Static_assert, and the various predefined
>> macros all seem to be ok.
>>
>
> Sorry, I thought you said it ironically, given the rate at which you
> found the two bugs mentioned. Good then, I've never used it, but I should
> give it a try. I think we'd better report any bug through that contact
> form linked in the homepage.
It looks like they want bug reports through their web forum at
<http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php>; bug reports are at
<http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?board=3.0>.
My report on the <noreturn.h> problem is at
<http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?topic=4733.0>.
--
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 | 2012-08-30 23:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <O5-dnfR9ZKGTR6LNnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #25570 |
Il 30/08/2012 22:47, Keith Thompson ha scritto: [..] > It looks like they want bug reports through their web forum at > <http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php>; bug reports are at > <http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?board=3.0>. > > My report on the <noreturn.h> problem is at > <http://forum.pellesc.de/index.php?topic=4733.0>. > Great! Thanks. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web