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 7 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 20 Next page →
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 01:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mTc%r.202941$GZ3.51296@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25323 |
Il 29/08/2012 00:15, Jens Gustedt ha scritto: > 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); > Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. Thank you Jens. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-28 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnipc2y2n4.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #25335 |
Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes:
[...]
> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'.
> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally.
> Thank you Jens.
It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should
have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline
functions as I should be.
--
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 | 2012-08-29 02:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Vld%r.202945$GZ3.189320@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25339 |
Il 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson ha scritto: > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: > [...] >> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >> Thank you Jens. > > It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should > have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline > functions as I should be. > I see. Well, I bet the most of us are not so familiar with how C handles inline functions. In such situations, one of the first things that comes to mind is: "buggy compiler". This discussion was very interesting to me, I learnt something new. So, I must thank you ;) -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 10:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a9mdnVOyVrXuUaDNnZ2dnUVZ7vGdnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #25339 |
On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: > Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: > [...] >> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >> Thank you Jens. > > It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should > have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline > functions as I should be. > 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 10:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503DD8C1.2070703@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25361 |
Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: > On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >> [...] >>> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >>> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >>> Thank you Jens. >> >> It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should >> have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline >> functions as I should be. >> > > 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 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. 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. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 13:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <epWdnaxviZ0KnKPNnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@lyse.net> |
| In reply to | #25366 |
On 29/08/2012 10:54, Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: >> On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >>>> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >>>> Thank you Jens. >>> >>> It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should >>> have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline >>> functions as I should be. >>> >> >> 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. > When you declare a function as "static inline", the compiler will only generate code for it if it cannot be inlined. In that case, you will get a copy for each such compilation unit - since it acts as a normal "static" function. But this will /only/ happen for those compilation units that use the function and cannot inline it. Of course, it is a good idea to enable compiler warnings about inline functions (-Winline in gcc). If you declare it as "inline" without the static, the effect is pretty much the same - except if the compiler can't inline a call, in which case it tries to use an external non-inline call (which will fail at linkage if you haven't made such a function). > 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. > > 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 inline" is different from plain "static", in that it gives a strong hint (though not a command) to the compiler that the function should be inlined. In practice there is not going to be a big difference between "inline" and "static inline", except that non-static "inline" has external linkage. Polluting the global namespace is never a good idea - keep all definitions in as small a scope as possible. The only time I would want to use non-static inline is if the function were used from many compilation units, several of them needed non-inlined calls, and the space wasted by multiple static non-inlined versions would waste significant space. I think that would be a very unusual set of circumstances. > Jens >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 07:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1l3bf$pks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25366 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: >> On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >>>> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >>>> Thank you Jens. >>> >>> It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should >>> have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline >>> functions as I should be. >>> >> >> 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. > The inline directive specifically asks that the thing be repeated for every ... call to them. That's more or less the definition of it - "treat this as if is were a '#define...' macro using different syntax." That's not *exactly* right, but it's a good first approximation. > 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. > > 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. > I see that the opposite way - the instantiation(s) and visibility of an identifier are mostly disjoint properties. > Jens > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E252A.6050309@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25381 |
Am 29.08.2012 14:57, schrieb Les Cargill: > Jens Gustedt wrote: >> Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: >>> On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >>>>> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >>>>> Thank you Jens. >>>> >>>> It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should >>>> have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline >>>> functions as I should be. >>>> >>> >>> 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. >> > > The inline directive specifically asks that the thing be repeated for > every ... call to them. That's more or less the definition of it - > "treat this as if is were a '#define...' macro using different syntax." > > That's not *exactly* right, but it's a good first approximation. No that is not how C99 and C11 see it. C11 says for the intention behind inline: 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. I makes not much suggestions of how this goal should be achieved, either. >> 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. >> >> 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. >> > > I see that the opposite way - it is not completely clear to me what you mean by oposite, here > the instantiation(s) and visibility of an identifier are mostly > disjoint properties. sure, but what is the connection? Fact is that the inline keyword added to a static function doesn't force anything and doesn't change the observable behavior of the program. Replacing static by inline changes the observable behavior. Adding inline to the definition of an extern function that is placed in a header file can change a non-conforming program into a conforming one. Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k1ljcs$6si$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25385 |
Jens Gustedt wrote: > Am 29.08.2012 14:57, schrieb Les Cargill: >> Jens Gustedt wrote: >>> Am 29.08.2012 10:01, schrieb David Brown: >>>> On 29/08/2012 02:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> Yes, that works because it specifies external linkage for `foo()'. >>>>>> I think that "static inline" was what he meant to write originally. >>>>>> Thank you Jens. >>>>> >>>>> It's not what I meant to write, but it's certainly what I should >>>>> have meant to write. I'm not as familiar with how C handles inline >>>>> functions as I should be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> The inline directive specifically asks that the thing be repeated for >> every ... call to them. That's more or less the definition of it - >> "treat this as if is were a '#define...' macro using different syntax." >> >> That's not *exactly* right, but it's a good first approximation. > > No that is not how C99 and C11 see it. C11 says for the intention behind > inline: > > 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. > > I makes not much suggestions of how this goal should be achieved, > either. > >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> I see that the opposite way - > > it is not completely clear to me what you mean by oposite, here > >> the instantiation(s) and visibility of an identifier are mostly >> disjoint properties. > > sure, but what is the connection? > "inline" affects how things are instantiated. "static" changes the visibility. Those are mostly disjoint properties. The Venn diagram probably has some overlap. > Fact is that the inline keyword added to a static function doesn't > force anything and doesn't change the observable behavior of the > program. > It does ( possibly ) change the behavior of the compiler. If you had certain optimizations on, the compiler might inline it anyway, and in that case, it wouldn't change the behavior of the compiler. I'd say we care about the behavior of the compiler as well as the behavior of the program - we want to be SEI Level 2 at least, and that means you know things about the validity of the operation of the toolchain. > Replacing static by inline changes the observable behavior. > > Adding inline to the definition of an extern function that is placed > in a header file can change a non-conforming program into a conforming > one. > That doesn't make any sense to me :) If it's extern, it's extern and can't really be inline. I just have no exposure to doing that. > Jens > -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E5F4E.5010604@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25405 |
Am 29.08.2012 19:32, schrieb Les Cargill:
> Jens Gustedt wrote:
>> Adding inline to the definition of an extern function that is placed
>> in a header file can change a non-conforming program into a conforming
>> one.
>>
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me :) If it's extern, it's extern
> and can't really be inline. I just have no exposure to doing
> that.
So just to expose you to that a bit, here is an example taken directly
from the C standard
inline double fahr(double t) {
return (9.0 * t) / 5.0 + 32.0;
}
<snip>
extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition
Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 14:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E64AF.6000205@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25411 |
On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: ... [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example] > ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition. ... > extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external definition define be the definition of either a function or an object. It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which is missing from that statement. My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause such a definition to be created. Is the non-normative text of 6.7.4p10 incorrect, or my understanding of C? Possibly, both?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xPt%r.203140$GZ3.21988@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25418 |
Il 29/08/2012 20:51, James Kuyper ha scritto: > On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: > ... > > [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example] > >> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition. > ... >> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition > > That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text > of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external > definition define be the definition of either a function or an object. > It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar > for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which > is missing from that statement. > > My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope > declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement > defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in > particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause > such a definition to be created. > > Is the non-normative text of 6.7.4p10 incorrect, or my understanding of > C? Possibly, both? > In my understanding, a declaration with "extern" makes the function definition with "inline", in the same translation unit, an external definition. That's what "creates an external definition" stands for, in my opinion. -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 15:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E6E3B.1070908@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25423 |
On 08/29/2012 03:11 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote: > Il 29/08/2012 20:51, James Kuyper ha scritto: >> On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: >> ... >> >> [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example] >> >>> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition. >> ... >>> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition >> >> That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text >> of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external >> definition define be the definition of either a function or an object. >> It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar >> for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which >> is missing from that statement. >> >> My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope >> declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement >> defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in >> particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause >> such a definition to be created. >> >> Is the non-normative text of 6.7.4p10 incorrect, or my understanding of >> C? Possibly, both? >> > > In my understanding, a declaration with "extern" makes the function > definition with "inline", in the same translation unit, an external > definition. That's what "creates an external definition" stands for, > in my opinion. Yes, but as far as I know, there's nothing in the normative text that says any such thing. It's only the non-normative text of this example which gives any reason to expect such semantics. If I'm right about that, then the example is in error. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate a citation of the relevant normative text. Unless it is worded in such a way as to override either 6.9p5 or 6.9.1p1, the existence of such normative text would constitute a defect in the standard. That's one of the key distinctions between normative and non-normative text: if non-normative text is in conflict with normative text, the non-normative text is simply wrong. The non-normative text might describe the committee's intent, but it will still be wrong, and the normative text will still be correct, unless and until the committee issues a resolution to the defect report that says otherwise. If two different pieces of normative text are in conflict, the standard is defective, and there will be no meaningful answer to the question of which piece is correct, until the committee issues a resolution to the defect report.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 21:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <Yku%r.203162$GZ3.10753@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25429 |
Il 29/08/2012 21:32, James Kuyper ha scritto:
> On 08/29/2012 03:11 PM, Vincenzo Mercuri wrote:
>> Il 29/08/2012 20:51, James Kuyper ha scritto:
>>> On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example]
>>>
>>>> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition.
>>> ...
>>>> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition
>>>
>>> That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text
>>> of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external
>>> definition define be the definition of either a function or an object.
>>> It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar
>>> for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which
>>> is missing from that statement.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope
>>> declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement
>>> defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in
>>> particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause
>>> such a definition to be created.
>>>
>>> Is the non-normative text of 6.7.4p10 incorrect, or my understanding of
>>> C? Possibly, both?
>>>
>>
>> In my understanding, a declaration with "extern" makes the function
>> definition with "inline", in the same translation unit, an external
>> definition. That's what "creates an external definition" stands for,
>> in my opinion.
>
> Yes, but as far as I know, there's nothing in the normative text that
> says any such thing. It's only the non-normative text of this example
> which gives any reason to expect such semantics. If I'm right about
> that, then the example is in error. If I'm wrong about that, I'd
> appreciate a citation of the relevant normative text. Unless it is
> worded in such a way as to override either 6.9p5 or 6.9.1p1, the
> existence of such normative text would constitute a defect in the standard.
>
[...]
I think a relevant part of the Standard is the following:
N1570 6.7.4p7:
[...] If all of the file scope declarations for a function in a translation
unit include the inline function specifier without extern, then the
definition in that translation unit is an inline definition. [...]
In my opinion this implies that if there is at least one file scope
declaration for the same function with "extern" then that definition is
an "external definition" as opposed to "inline definition".
--
Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 23:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E8325.4040306@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25432 |
Am 29.08.2012 21:47, schrieb Vincenzo Mercuri:
> I think a relevant part of the Standard is the following:
>
> N1570 6.7.4p7:
>
> [...] If all of the file scope declarations for a function in a translation
> unit include the inline function specifier without extern, then the
> definition in that translation unit is an inline definition. [...]
>
> In my opinion this implies that if there is at least one file scope
> declaration for the same function with "extern" then that definition is
> an "external definition" as opposed to "inline definition".
yes, basically
this implies that there are three possible idioms for instantiation of
inline functions. If you have a header file with something like
inline void f(void) { }
Then any of the following three in a .c file that includes the header
will make this definition an external definition for the compilation
unit.
extern inline void f(void); // includes extern and inline
extern void f(void); // doesn't have inline
void f(void); // doesn't have inline
This is what I meant with "instantiation" syntax. (yes, the term is
not used in the standard, but conceptually it comes pretty close to
it.)
And this is how it basically works with modern gcc.
Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 19:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1lqfl$ghn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25418 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:51:27 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: > On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: > ... > > [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example] > >> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition. > ... >> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition > > That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text > of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external > definition define be the definition of either a function or an object. > It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar > for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which > is missing from that statement. > > My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope > declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement > defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in > particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause > such a definition to be created. Since "extern double fahr(double);" is a declaration of fahr without the inline specifier at file scope, then the text in 6.7.4p7 regarding inline definitions no longer applies. In the example, this declaration directly causes the earlier definition of fahr to become an external definition, as opposed to an inline definition. Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to say for this example that it is in fact the second declaration of fahr which creates the external definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincenzo Mercuri <vincenzo.mercuri@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g5u%r.203151$GZ3.48701@tornado.fastwebnet.it> |
| In reply to | #25427 |
Il 29/08/2012 21:27, Nick Bowler ha scritto: > Since "extern double fahr(double);" is a declaration of fahr without the > inline specifier at file scope, then the text in 6.7.4p7 regarding inline > definitions no longer applies. In the example, this declaration directly > causes the earlier definition of fahr to become an external definition, as > opposed to an inline definition. > > Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to say for this example > that it is in fact the second declaration of fahr which creates the > external definition. Exactly what I meant, but my english is not as good : ) -- Vincenzo Mercuri
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 15:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <503E7138.9000307@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #25427 |
On 08/29/2012 03:27 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:51:27 -0400, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote: >> ... >> >> [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example] >> >>> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition. >> ... >>> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition >> >> That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text >> of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external >> definition define be the definition of either a function or an object. >> It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar >> for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which >> is missing from that statement. >> >> My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope >> declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement >> defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in >> particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause >> such a definition to be created. > > Since "extern double fahr(double);" is a declaration of fahr without the > inline specifier at file scope, then the text in 6.7.4p7 regarding inline > definitions no longer applies. In the example, this declaration directly > causes the earlier definition of fahr to become an external definition, as > opposed to an inline definition. OK - that makes sense. However, as I read 6.7.4p7, it would also have the same effect without the 'extern' keyword. The example would have been less confusing with out it. > Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to say for this example > that it is in fact the second declaration of fahr which creates the > external definition. I disagree, there. It's the previous definition that creates the definition. The second declaration merely determines whether the definition, which has already been created, is an inline definition or and external definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1lspo$ghn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25431 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:44:56 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 03:27 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:51:27 -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2012 02:28 PM, Jens Gustedt wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> [citing 6.7.4p10, which is a non-normative example]
>>>
>>>> ... A file scope declaration with extern creates an external definition.
>>> ...
>>>> extern double fahr(double); // creates an external definition
>>>
>>> That comment is inconsistent with my understanding of the normative text
>>> of the standard. In particular, 6.9p5 requires that an external
>>> definition define be the definition of either a function or an object.
>>> It's clearly not an external definition of an object, and the grammar
>>> for a function definition in 6.9.1p1 requires a compound-statement which
>>> is missing from that statement.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that, in conflict with 6.7.4p10, a file scope
>>> declaration with extern, but no corresponding compound statement
>>> defining the body of the function, is not a definition, and in
>>> particular, is not an external definition, nor does it somehow cause
>>> such a definition to be created.
>>
>> Since "extern double fahr(double);" is a declaration of fahr without the
>> inline specifier at file scope, then the text in 6.7.4p7 regarding inline
>> definitions no longer applies. In the example, this declaration directly
>> causes the earlier definition of fahr to become an external definition, as
>> opposed to an inline definition.
>
> OK - that makes sense. However, as I read 6.7.4p7, it would also have
> the same effect without the 'extern' keyword. The example would have
> been less confusing with out it.
You are correct that the extern specifier is not required. All of the
following should be equivalent for the purposes of that example:
double fahr(double);
extern double fahr(double);
extern inline double fahr(double);
and all the umpteen minor variations thereof. I don't think any of
these are more or less clear than the others, because the same sentence
in 6.7.4p7 applies to all three declarations in exactly the same way.
>> Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to say for this example
>> that it is in fact the second declaration of fahr which creates the
>> external definition.
>
> I disagree, there. It's the previous definition that creates the
> definition.
It is a function definition, yes, but not necessarily an external
definition (which are the words used in the comment).
> The second declaration merely determines whether the definition, which
> has already been created, is an inline definition or and external
> definition.
If we delete the second declaration of fahr from the example, the
external definition goes away. I think "create" is a reasonable
word to use, especially given that this is non-normative text. The
following definition of "create" from my dictionary seems to directly
apply to this situation
create
v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's
office"; "create a furor" [syn: {make}]
as it is the second declaration which causes the earlier function
definition to become an external definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-08-29 23:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <503E8439.6060807@loria.fr> |
| In reply to | #25438 |
Am 29.08.2012 22:07, schrieb Nick Bowler:
> If we delete the second declaration of fahr from the example, the
> external definition goes away. I think "create" is a reasonable
> word to use, especially given that this is non-normative text. The
> following definition of "create" from my dictionary seems to directly
> apply to this situation
>
> create
> v 1: make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's
> office"; "create a furor" [syn: {make}]
>
> as it is the second declaration which causes the earlier function
> definition to become an external definition.
This is why I would all the second declaration (in any of its three
variants) an "instantiation" of the function, I think this is what some
related programming language that once invented the concept of "inline"
calls this.
Jens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web