Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63278 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 18:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-16 14:53 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 11:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:11 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 12:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 09:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 11:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 20:47 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 03:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 16:00 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 08:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 11:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 15:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-19 21:02 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 18:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:25 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-21 12:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:54 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:46 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 03:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-20 09:01 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 21:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 22:41 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 00:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-22 08:14 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 07:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:25 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 18:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 11:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-24 09:19 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 20:29 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-23 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 12:48 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 13:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 21:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 14:05 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:34 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 16:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 18:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 21:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 14:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 13:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:33 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-20 15:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-19 10:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 12:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 21:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 13:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 14:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 13:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 16:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:26 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 20:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 17:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 01:12 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:35 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 15:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 11:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:12 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 10:37 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:42 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-12 21:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 13:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 09:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 21:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 00:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-12 20:57 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 22:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 13:22 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 19:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:28 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 09:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 11:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-13 19:56 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 08:27 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 18:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-15 12:59 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-20 17:32 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 07:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 11:58 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 05:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:49 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 20:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 22:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:40 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 00:14 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 05:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 10:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 11:19 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 07:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 17:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 23:28 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 22:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 21:22 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:41 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 03:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:57 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 17:09 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 23:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 17:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 23:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-24 21:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 00:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-06-25 01:47 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 20:24 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 10:00 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 14:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 07:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:16 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 19:55 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-25 18:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:03 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 18:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 10:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 19:07 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:43 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:26 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:45 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 14:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:57 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 15:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:24 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 20:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 20:04 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:42 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 20:46 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 16:37 -0500
[OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:25 +0200
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-26 14:18 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 06:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:20 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:30 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 13:40 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 14:09 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 14:23 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 22:12 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 03:03 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-27 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:51 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:59 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:13 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:43 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 11:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:56 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-25 12:46 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 04:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 12:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 20:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 17:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 12:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 04:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 14:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 06:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 17:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 22:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-28 11:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:43 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 08:50 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 12:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:20 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 09:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:05 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 14:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 06:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 13:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 15:56 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 21:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 18:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 12:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 13:21 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 11:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 12:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 11:02 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-03 17:25 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 11:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 15:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:31 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-23 21:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 20:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-23 01:51 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 19:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-22 22:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 02:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 11:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 00:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 09:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 11:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:50 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:37 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 17:04 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 15:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 08:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 23:06 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:20 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 10:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 15:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 17:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 17:57 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 19:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 13:29 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 19:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 18:10 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-16 00:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 17:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 20:58 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-16 09:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 12:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-16 09:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 10:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 21:47 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-06-15 21:20 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 18:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:18 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-26 18:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:28 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 21:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 01:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 04:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 17:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 05:10 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 22:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 07:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10cda293-d974-4dd7-8023-91a039dc7391@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64295 |
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9:55:45 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <cf506977-bc7e-4109-b60a-ba1f8044cee9@googlegroups.com>,
> Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >It means fewer allowances for arcane features. I don't have a
> >comprehensive list, but off the top of my head and for starters:
> >
> >(1) Everything is little-endian (or big-endian, doesn't matter, but
> > only one them is supported in the standard).
>
> This would have been a problem back in the day - when the two main
> contenders were x86 and Sparc, which have different endianness.
>
> >(2) Everything is two's complement.
>
> As for the rest of these, it looks like you want POSIX.
>
> And, yes, there's a lot that says that people should be programming to the
> POSIX standard(s), not to the C standard(s).
>
> Except for the existence of this small, insignificant company in Redmond,
> WA...
>
> You see the parallel? If it hadn't been for the existence of x86 (and some
> small, insignificant company in Oregon), we'd probably all be big-endian
> and that would be that. And if it hadn't been for Windows, we'd probably
> all be POSIX and that would be that.
Would've been nice.
I too was under the x86 delusion for a long time. It was the first
architecture I was exposed to by a man named Allen Earheart back in
1987. I was absolutely enthralled with the 80386 architecture. It
became my full programming life for the next 15 years. And I still
hold a powerful affinity for it because of my familiarity with it,
much of which is aging now as I haven't done as much low-level work
in years.
I have discovered the Computer History channel on YouTube and have
been watching some of the Oral History programs with the people who,
back in the day, invented many of the architectures which I used to
read about and report on at Geek.com and TGDaily.com in the 2000s.
It's really opened my eyes to the advantages present in other
architectures.
I'm not sure why the Wintel coallition proceeded, but I'm certain
it was not by honest and upright measures. I actually began writing
my operating system because of Microsoft's policy of requiring
MS-DOS licensing to be sold on new machines, even if the OS shipped
with the machine was not MS-DOS. That made me vomit. I named my
OS "Exodus" about 8 years before I became a Christian because I
desperately wanted it to be a mass departure from evil.
Today I have my LibSF 386-x40 project, a 40-bit 80386 core which
supports the original i386 instruction set with a few i686
extensions, has hardware support for ARM and my own li386 mode
which uses different opcodes, removing some instructions, and
adding others.
You can see it here:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/oppie/LibSF-386-x40
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/li386-documentation/images
I have lots of drive and desire. And I spend my time moving
in these directions. I have the knowledge and expertise to
work my way through the hard work. What I do not have are the
resources to commit the time necessary to bring these to
fruition (because of my day job). It is an ongoing source
of frustration for me as I recognize that I am stopped in all
cases that I'm aware of to date by the fact that I place the
Lord ahead of what I do, rather than some interest like money.
But, it is better to serve the Lord and accomplish nothing in
worldly terms, than it is to accomplish even everything in
worldly terms and not serve the Lord.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fbe1795-121b-4673-9940-b8433a139cff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64296 |
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 10:15:46 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> You can see [LibSF 386-x40] here:
>
> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/oppie/LibSF-386-x40
> https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/li386-documentation/images
And here are some more:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/opencores.org.post.txt
Here is a core I began writing I called Oppie-1. It has a tiny
assembler, debugger, and virtual machine. I also coded the Verilog
for it, but I never tested or debugged it.
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/tree/master/li386/oppie/oppie1
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/li386/oppie/oppie1/debo-1-actual.png
I ultimately migrated the project to my own web page as well, and
began coming up with the idea for software called Crosswise, for
my own type of Verilog compiler, but one which was more visual
rather than nearly completely text-based:
http://www.libsf.org/li386/indexmain.html
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 15:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <876169gpxt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64294 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9:11:56 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> > My position is here: >> > Core C needs to be the smaller core. Extensions out to non-standard >> > things need to be extensions. >> >> This terminology is not at all clear. What is smaller? More rules? >> Fewer restrictions? More features? Less latitude given to compiler >> writers? More latitude? > > It means fewer allowances for arcane features. I don't have a > comprehensive list, but off the top of my head and for starters: > > (1) Everything is little-endian (or big-endian, doesn't matter, but > only one them is supported in the standard). > > (2) Everything is two's complement. > > (3) char = 8 bits, short = 16 bits, int = 32 bits, long = 32 bits, > long long = 64 bits, and all of those names are deprecated or > flatly deleted from the core language (with them being allowed > back with #defines), and in their place the forms s8,s16,s32,s64 > are introduced, with u8,u16,u32,u64 for unsigned values, with > f32 and f64 being provided for float and double. > <snip detail> > > Any sizes beyond these are reserved for definition in the known > extensions, or in the unlimited world of custom extensions. > > (4) All pointers are the same size. Right. But what's the effect for me as a programmer? Do you want there to be fewer machines with core C compilers, or so you hope that on big endian machines, core C will be implemented but just run rather slowly? If I program in standard C, my code will run on a huge range of machines, and it will be quite fast on them all. I need to take some care about cases that crop up only rarely (like the byte order and the sign number representation) but that seems like a small price to pay to avoid the cost what you are proposing. > (5) All comparisons between different-signed values are upsized to > the largest signed value which guarantees an appropriate compare. Not sure what you mean here. I take it you don't like the fact that, in C, -1 < 0ul is false because the -1 is converted to unsigned long, yes? If I've got that right, what type is used when comparing a signed and an unsigned long long int? > This may include upsizing to a double. When would double be used? >> Answering the following questions might me understand: Scratch these (but thanks for addressing them) since your suggestions involve superficial changes (like the names of types) that make almost all C programs invalid: > [...] The changes to "core C" I'm proposing > change some fundamental "roots" of C, which would make even the > simple "hello world" programs no longer compile without changes > (changing int to s32, for example). <snip> >> To be clear: the driving focus will be on developing a new, bigger, >> language (one with more features than C) called RDC, yes? And this >> language currently has no specification, yes? I ask because a >> specification of RDC might help explain this mysterious "core C". > > RDC provides additional features for developers, but it is wrapped > around a very simple core. Maybe this core is specified somewhere? > The specs have been published on clc before: > > https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/source/vjr/source/compiler/rdc/rdc_specs.txt That's not a specification. It does not even have a grammar for the language (did I miss it?) much less specify the meaning of all those extra constructs. What's more it make reference to other languages that are changing. Do you allow all the new C++ forms of function definition when you say "the general C/C++ syntax form is allowable"? (Or maybe you are using "general" to mean "original"?) I get that you have only limited time, and its hard to find motivation to specify a language that only you will ever use, but that does not mean you should say there is one when there isn't. You can still develop it even if the specification is only in your mind. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <adeda733-b149-44f3-aeb0-99ca93b92980@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64300 |
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 10:56:54 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > The specs have been published on clc before:
> >
> > https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf/blob/master/source/vjr/source/compiler/rdc/rdc_specs.txt
>
> That's not a specification. It does not even have a grammar for the
> language (did I miss it?) much less specify the meaning of all those
> extra constructs. What's more it make reference to other languages that
> are changing. Do you allow all the new C++ forms of function definition
> when you say "the general C/C++ syntax form is allowable"? (Or maybe
> you are using "general" to mean "original"?)
>
> I get that you have only limited time, and its hard to find motivation
> to specify a language that only you will ever use, but that does not
> mean you should say there is one when there isn't. You can still
> develop it even if the specification is only in your mind.
It's what I've written, Ben. It is my specification to date.
The rest is in the inertia of my mind and thinking since the
late 90s, and in various concepts conveyed on my wiki for
VXB++ and its features in Visual FreePro:
http://www.visual-freepro.org/wiki/index.php/VXB%2B%2B
-----
My advice to you on this matter is: Don't worry about it.
Let it go. Relax a little. Enjoy your life.
Who am I? I am Rick C. Hodgin from Indiana. I was born
the son of a welder, grew up in an affluent community
(although we were lower-middle-class), and have made a
pile of mistakes in my life reaching up higher than I
can imagine. I have nothing of value to offer you. I
can only proceed as best I am able, and rely upon God
to do the rest, moving in my life as He sees fit.
There is likely little chance any changes will be made to
C due to any of my efforts, thoughts, or comments. And I'm
okay with that. In addition, clc history suggests that all
of my thoughts on programming are of the kind that you
personally find distasteful, inappropriate, and utterly
ridiculous. And I'm okay with that too.
As I see it, it's just not worth worrying over. I'm one
man who is authoring a compiler that "only [I] will ever
use." So why give anything I write a second thought? It's
not worth the effort of responding to me because the space
between us ... well it's measured in kilo-AUs I'd imagine.
I'm okay with you not responding to my posts. And Keith.
And Ian. And everyone else. I am offering what I am
offering unto God, and I am doing the best I can with what
I have. It is enough for Him. And it is enough for me.
And when He is ready to move in my life, it will be enough
for whoever it is that steps up and funds further
development.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 21:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r3owga98.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64301 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > As I see it, it's just not worth worrying over. I'm one > man who is authoring a compiler that "only [I] will ever > use." So why give anything I write a second thought? Because you also spoke about C, and this is a C group, and I like talking about C. But you didn't reply to the C-related part of my post. I only asked about RDC's specification because RDC seemed to embody the notion I was not able to understand -- what value "core C" would have. Without any more detail about "core C" the on-topic discussion seems to have ground to a halt. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mmmrpd$4v6$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #64294 |
Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: (snip) > It means fewer allowances for arcane features. I don't have a > comprehensive list, but off the top of my head and for starters: > (1) Everything is little-endian (or big-endian, doesn't matter, but > only one them is supported in the standard). > (2) Everything is two's complement. I think you should look at Java. Continuing the old story that you can write Fortran in any language, it isn't so hard to write C in Java. Do all your output with System.out.format() for one. (That is a relatively recent addition to Java, but should make C programmers happy.) Write only static methods. > (3) char = 8 bits, short = 16 bits, int = 32 bits, long = 32 bits, > long long = 64 bits, and all of those names are deprecated or > flatly deleted from the core language (with them being allowed > back with #defines), and in their place the forms s8,s16,s32,s64 > are introduced, with u8,u16,u32,u64 for unsigned values, with > f32 and f64 being provided for float and double. A little of for Java, but not so far. Java's char is unsigned 16 bit, there is byte, short, int, and long for 8, 16, 32, 64 bit signed, float and double are required to be IEEE floating point types. > I also propose a new "flag" variable type, which is a one-bit > value the compiler will reference for boolean values. They are > also set with Yes/No, Up/Down, On/Off keyword names, rather than > 1 or 0. Java has boolean, with reserved words true and false for its values. You can't get away with 0 or 1, even in if statements. > Any sizes beyond these are reserved for definition in the known > extensions, or in the unlimited world of custom extensions. > (4) All pointers are the same size. How do you know what size they are? Java pointers are all the same size, as far as you can tell. > (5) All comparisons between different-signed values are upsized to > the largest signed value which guarantees an appropriate compare. > This may include upsizing to a double. Java has narrowing and widening conversions, and appropriate rules for when casts are required. >> Answering the following questions might me understand: Seems to me that Java is a lot more C-like than C++, and as far as I know, that was intentional. Just as you can write object-oriented programs in C, you can write non-OO programs in Java. You have to use some of the Java system classes, but not too many. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 12:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aef824f-cb32-48fd-b516-84604032e8db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64314 |
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:59:03 PM UTC-4, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > I think you should look at Java... I plan to incorporate a Java front-end to my RDC compiler. Also a C# compiler with .NET library support. > > (4) All pointers are the same size. > > How do you know what size they are? Java pointers are all the > same size, as far as you can tell. You don't. It is for compiler development. The specs are not all for end-users, but some of them are to simplify the basic design in the core, and then extend it out to any needed extensions. > Seems to me that Java is a lot more C-like than C++, and as far > as I know, that was intentional. Agreed. > Just as you can write object-oriented programs in C, you can > write non-OO programs in Java. You have to use some of the Java > system classes, but not too many. Agreed. I like Java. I've found it exceedingly easy to develop in, and with the ability to directly access Java content from C, I have been able to extend it to contain some features which made it easy to extend. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 13:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zYAjx.5946$546.2002@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #64290 |
On 6/27/15 8:26 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:19:01 AM UTC-4, Richard Bos wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Would you still write source code the same way? Yes. >>> Would you still compile source code the same way? Yes. >>> Would you still run your executable the same way? Yes. >>> What's different? Only the fact that parts of core C are employed, >>> along with some extensions to core C. >> >> If it doesn't change anything but the terminology, why are you so >> upset by our pointing out that it doesn't do any good? > > Your reply postulates a position that is not mine (that I am upset), > and then asks me how I can be that way. I believe that's called a > non-sequitor, or a strawman argument. > > My position is here: > > Core C needs to be the smaller core. Extensions out to non-standard > things need to be extensions. In so doing, fully compatible C > compilers can be created which target the core. This makes them > smaller and easier to understand as compiler authors, developers in > general, and new users coming to the language. Then, for those who > are seeking additional training or knowledge, they can enter in to > the extensions which are import to them on their architectures, > rather than having to be inundated by the entirety of it all at one > go. > > I recognize other people do not subscribe to this idea. I do. > And it will be the driving force in my endeavors moving forward. > I would like to see it incorporated into C, but I hold only remote > hope of that ever happening. > > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin > Rick, The issue is you seem not to understand the concept of what an 'extension' is, and thus you have things backwards. For example, POSIX is an extension to the C Language spec. It defines additional behaviors and resources to the programmer. Note that standard conforming C programs will also be (mostly) conforming to the POSIX standard. (The exception would be if the program uses a symbol that POSIX defines for itself.). For implementations, it works the other way, a POSIX conforming implementation will generally be a conforming C implementation (the POSIX standard has constrained the choices the implementation can make, but they are still valid choices from the base standard. This says that your "Core C" is an EXTENSION to standard C, not a subset that standard C is an extension to it. Note that all the flexibility that the standard gives to the implementation on size of objects can only make writing the compiler simpler, as it allows the compiler to use more natural constructs. Now if you are a compiler writer that wants to write a compiler that can compile to 'any' processor, having a language that can naturally target more machines will make things more complicated as you are handling more cases. (It is naturally harder to write a program targeting 1000 cases than 10). Yes, perhaps there is a good use case for defining an 'extension' that defines a lot of the basic characteristics of a machine, and perhaps define some 'common' undefined behaviors. It is actually quite common for people to program to an 'extension' like this (often, they will assume that whatever their implementation provides is what is defined to be). If the program will never leave that implementation, there is ultimately little wrong with it. 'Portability' is often NOT the highest priority. (That said, it is good to avoid gratuitous invocation of non-portability, as a surprising number of programs will eventually need to move to something slightly different).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5aa6a0e-82f6-4d32-987f-0669246f039b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64309 |
On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 10:21:44 AM UTC-7, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/15 8:26 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 8:19:01 AM UTC-4, Richard Bos wrote:
> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Would you still write source code the same way? Yes.
> >>> Would you still compile source code the same way? Yes.
> >>> Would you still run your executable the same way? Yes.
> >>> What's different? Only the fact that parts of core C are employed,
> >>> along with some extensions to core C.
> >>
> >> If it doesn't change anything but the terminology, why are you so
> >> upset by our pointing out that it doesn't do any good?
> >
> > Your reply postulates a position that is not mine (that I am upset),
> > and then asks me how I can be that way. I believe that's called a
> > non-sequitor, or a strawman argument.
> >
> > My position is here:
> >
> > Core C needs to be the smaller core. Extensions out to non-standard
> > things need to be extensions. In so doing, fully compatible C
> > compilers can be created which target the core. This makes them
> > smaller and easier to understand as compiler authors, developers in
> > general, and new users coming to the language. Then, for those who
> > are seeking additional training or knowledge, they can enter in to
> > the extensions which are import to them on their architectures,
> > rather than having to be inundated by the entirety of it all at one
> > go.
> >
> > I recognize other people do not subscribe to this idea. I do.
> > And it will be the driving force in my endeavors moving forward.
> > I would like to see it incorporated into C, but I hold only remote
> > hope of that ever happening.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Rick C. Hodgin
> >
>
> Rick,
> The issue is you seem not to understand the concept of what an
> 'extension' is, and thus you have things backwards.
>
> For example, POSIX is an extension to the C Language spec. It defines
> additional behaviors and resources to the programmer.
>
> Note that standard conforming C programs will also be (mostly)
> conforming to the POSIX standard. (The exception would be if the program
> uses a symbol that POSIX defines for itself.).
>
> For implementations, it works the other way, a POSIX conforming
> implementation will generally be a conforming C implementation (the
> POSIX standard has constrained the choices the implementation can make,
> but they are still valid choices from the base standard.
>
> This says that your "Core C" is an EXTENSION to standard C, not a subset
> that standard C is an extension to it. Note that all the flexibility
> that the standard gives to the implementation on size of objects can
> only make writing the compiler simpler, as it allows the compiler to use
> more natural constructs. Now if you are a compiler writer that wants to
> write a compiler that can compile to 'any' processor, having a language
> that can naturally target more machines will make things more
> complicated as you are handling more cases. (It is naturally harder to
> write a program targeting 1000 cases than 10).
>
> Yes, perhaps there is a good use case for defining an 'extension' that
> defines a lot of the basic characteristics of a machine, and perhaps
> define some 'common' undefined behaviors.
>
> It is actually quite common for people to program to an 'extension' like
> this (often, they will assume that whatever their implementation
> provides is what is defined to be). If the program will never leave that
> implementation, there is ultimately little wrong with it. 'Portability'
> is often NOT the highest priority. (That said, it is good to avoid
> gratuitous invocation of non-portability, as a surprising number of
> programs will eventually need to move to something slightly different).
I'm interested in something I call "Core C" but mine is different
than Rick's. I define "Core C" as free-standing C90.
If I wrote a compiler for Core C I would observe a large number of
places where alternatives would be possible but are not part of C.
Trivial example: After the keyword "if" only the character "(" is
part of C. An extension of core C would be a new alternative - like
"if not" (a stupid synonym for "else").
At the moment I see no need for any extensions of core C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 12:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlhf5ezsb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #64309 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
[...]
> It is actually quite common for people to program to an 'extension' like
> this (often, they will assume that whatever their implementation
> provides is what is defined to be). If the program will never leave that
> implementation, there is ultimately little wrong with it. 'Portability'
> is often NOT the highest priority. (That said, it is good to avoid
> gratuitous invocation of non-portability, as a surprising number of
> programs will eventually need to move to something slightly different).
Furthermore, programmers sometimes make more assumptions about the
behavior of the current implementation than are actually justified.
One example is the behavior on signed integer overflow. One might
assume that, on a two's-complement system, INT_MAX + 1 == INT_MIN --
but the addition has undefined behavior, and an optimizing compiler
can take advantage of that fact.
This program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
int main(void) {
int x = INT_MAX;
puts(x + 1 > x ? "yes" : "no");
return 0;
}
can print either "yes" or "no", depending on the optimization level
(that's true for gcc, and likely true for other compilers).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-28 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <558fd40b.6087218@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #64290 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > My position is here: > > Core C needs to be the smaller core. Yes, you've said this repeatedly. But you have yet to explain: a) what is the difference between C and this "Core C" you claim exists, and b) for the love of Cthulhu, _WHY!?_ Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-28 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ccc9e5b-7636-4171-b48a-08fec870cbe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64348 |
On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 7:03:09 AM UTC-4, Richard Bos wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > > My position is here: > > Core C needs to be the smaller core. > > Yes, you've said this repeatedly. But you have yet to explain: > > a) what is the difference between C and this "Core C" you claim exists, Core C only supports a fixed set of hardware, which I have proposed to be little-endian, two's complement, 8-bit based variables (8, 16, 32, 64), introduces a new 1-bit flag variable, same size pointers, has a "Core C compiler" (ccc) which is released by the Core C group, and a virtual machine with its own Core C compiler implementation, a debugger, and an editor. I would also propose that all Core C library functions be automatically included as being avaialble in the language, and then they must be purposefully and explicitly excluded if you DON'T want them. This Core C package could be downloaded, installed, and everything would work immediately as it would in the help manuals and tutorial videos made for that version. It would be a way to provide a simple baseline for writing C code, one that is machine and architecture independent for those jobs that aren't really time critical, but just need to run correctly and in a reasonable amount of time, greatly simplifying distribution for a wide range of existing C applications. In the case of Core C, I wouldn't even mind leaving the char, int, long, etc., for legacy purposes. And a few more features I'd think of. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-03 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5596c356.9435140@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #64362 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 7:03:09 AM UTC-4, Richard Bos wrote: > > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My position is here: > > > Core C needs to be the smaller core. > > > > Yes, you've said this repeatedly. But you have yet to explain: > > > > a) what is the difference between C and this "Core C" you claim exists, > > Core C only supports a fixed set of hardware, which I have proposed to be > little-endian, two's complement, 8-bit based variables (8, 16, 32, 64), > introduces a new 1-bit flag variable, same size pointers, has a "Core C > compiler" (ccc) which is released by the Core C group, and a virtual > machine with its own Core C compiler implementation, a debugger, and > an editor. So you want Java. > This Core C package could be downloaded, installed, and everything would > work immediately as it would in the help manuals and tutorial videos > made for that version. So you want Java. > It would be a way to provide a simple baseline for writing C code, > one that is machine and architecture independent for those jobs that > aren't really time critical, but just need to run correctly and in a > reasonable amount of time, greatly simplifying distribution for a wide > range of existing C applications. Except that it wouldn't - it would turn C into Java. I think I understand why you want that - you prefer theoretical and teaching languages to unkempt, practical, _working_ languages like C, and you can't deal with the entire world of complicated systems that exist out there in the real, everyday world of practical programming and would prefer that every computer in existence were clean and simple, like your simplistic, pretend-saintly world view - but what I do not understand, and what you have steadfastly refused to explain, is _why_ you insist on turning C into this straitjacket. And you don't want to. Because you cannot without admitting that you're not as saintly a person as you pretend to your own heart to be. You may be fooling yourself, but you're not fooling anyone else: your reasons for this silly insistence is not that you want to make C better for everybody, but that you want to make C _not scary_ for yourself, so you don't have to admit that the real world is larger than your own world view, in programming and in everything else. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpp4l7xeh.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #64083 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
> Consider a platform where the hardware-addressable memory unit (word) is
> 16 bits, which has a maximum of 2^16 words of memory installed. A
> pointer to any word-aligned type (which would be basically anything
> other than char, unsigned char, and signed char, and possibly _Bool) can
> therefore be stored in a single word. However, void*, char*, unsigned
> char*, and char* have to be implemented by the combination of a 16-bit
> word address, and a 1-bit offset indicating whether it points at the
> first or second byte of the word. The smallest permitted size for a
> void* is therefore 3 bytes (1.5 words), but that would require
> extracting one of the three bytes by mask-and-shift operations. You
> could simplify the handling of pointers at the cost of expanding them to
> 4 bytes. On a platform with such a small amount of memory installed,
> that might be unacceptable.
[...]
Another option for such a platform would be to define CHAR_BIT==16.
That might or might not be acceptable depending on the requirements for
the system; for example it precludes POSIX conformance.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"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 | 2015-06-24 15:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <558B0244.6090903@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #64093 |
On 06/24/2015 02:51 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: > [...] >> Consider a platform where the hardware-addressable memory unit (word) is >> 16 bits, which has a maximum of 2^16 words of memory installed. A >> pointer to any word-aligned type (which would be basically anything >> other than char, unsigned char, and signed char, and possibly _Bool) can >> therefore be stored in a single word. However, void*, char*, unsigned >> char*, and char* have to be implemented by the combination of a 16-bit >> word address, and a 1-bit offset indicating whether it points at the >> first or second byte of the word. The smallest permitted size for a >> void* is therefore 3 bytes (1.5 words), but that would require >> extracting one of the three bytes by mask-and-shift operations. You >> could simplify the handling of pointers at the cost of expanding them to >> 4 bytes. On a platform with such a small amount of memory installed, >> that might be unacceptable. > [...] > > Another option for such a platform would be to define CHAR_BIT==16. > That might or might not be acceptable depending on the requirements for > the system; for example it precludes POSIX conformance. It also makes all character data bigger - which might not be a problem if the target audience is one for which a 16-bit encoding such as UTF-16 or UCS-2 is preferred.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 12:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mmeltq$doq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64022 |
On 06/24/2015 12:05 PM, James Kuyper wrote: ... > C) TwoSize - pointers to word-aligned types are stored in a single word, > allowing them to be read and written even faster than the pointers used > by UniformB. Pointers to byte-aligned types are stored as three words, Correction: "three words" => "three bytes". -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <61bjoalqq5jd1dtbjqaosek5mtvjm70qs8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #63914 |
On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
>The pointer issue is an extremely small point to me. I haven't
>responded with force on that issue because (1) I've been amazed
>it's been the point people have jumped on, and (2) I haven't even
>thought it through beyond some sidelong thoughts in this thread.
>My initial reaction and thinking is as I've indicated: having
>multiple and varied sized pointers is not desirable in the standard.
>It may be desirable (and necessary) on certain architectures, but
>not in general in moving forward, and not in the standard.
for me the above speech it is only about portability... if type are
all as intxx_t, if pointers have know fixed size, if operators +-*etc
act with them the same, in all machine
that should be as binary portability
for me in 80% of cases is ok a 16 bit pointer
in 99% of cases is ok a 32 bit pointer
but if one has a file of 9 GB... what about puts that file all in
memory and use a pointer of 64 bit? [or 32+16 bit]
how is possible to write a C portable program that use a ponter of
64bit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 20:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmcbje$ucc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63971 |
On 23/06/15 20:11, Rosario19 wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote: >>The pointer issue is an extremely small point to me. I haven't >>responded with force on that issue because (1) I've been amazed >>it's been the point people have jumped on, and (2) I haven't even >>thought it through beyond some sidelong thoughts in this thread. >>My initial reaction and thinking is as I've indicated: having >>multiple and varied sized pointers is not desirable in the standard. >>It may be desirable (and necessary) on certain architectures, but >>not in general in moving forward, and not in the standard. > > for me the above speech it is only about portability... For me, it's about arrogance - it's about wanting for the International Standard that defines the language to be changed to accommodate his desire to dictate to implementors that all their pointer sizes must be uniform, regardless of efficiency considerations - and this is for an issue that not only doesn't affect him but (as cited above) he doesn't even care very much about (it's "an extremely small point" to him). Heaven help us if he ever discovers an issue he /does/ care about. > if type are > all as intxx_t, if pointers have know fixed size, if operators +-*etc > act with them the same, in all machine > that should be as binary portability Yeah, if you make all the computers in the world a VAX, then all the computers in the world will be a VAX. And then, when someone comes along with a better computer, everybody will ignore it because it's not a VAX. That's not how progress happens. > > for me in 80% of cases is ok a 16 bit pointer > in 99% of cases is ok a 32 bit pointer In 100% of cases the pointer size selected by the architect or the implementor is okay, because it's what you *have* to use if you're going to use that platform. So you have to deal with what's there, and the easiest way by far of dealing with what's there is by ignoring it and, instead, sticking to C's rules for converting pointer values. If you do that, you *so* don't have to worry about this. > but if one has a file of 9 GB... what about puts that file all in > memory and use a pointer of 64 bit? [or 32+16 bit] Pointer sizes are not your problem here. Having a 9GB file all in memory is your problem here. That's an indication that you need to think again about your algorithm. > how is possible to write a C portable program that use a ponter of > 64bit? Close your eyes. Seriously. If you want to write a portable C program, be blind to pointer sizes. They really don't matter. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f6b1e9e-78e5-46fc-a204-caea52d7ec53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63971 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:12:06 PM UTC-4, Rosario19 wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT), "Rick C. Hodgin" wrote: > >The pointer issue is an extremely small point to me. I haven't > >responded with force on that issue because (1) I've been amazed > >it's been the point people have jumped on, and (2) I haven't even > >thought it through beyond some sidelong thoughts in this thread. > >My initial reaction and thinking is as I've indicated: having > >multiple and varied sized pointers is not desirable in the standard. > >It may be desirable (and necessary) on certain architectures, but > >not in general in moving forward, and not in the standard. > > for me the above speech it is only about portability... if type are > all as intxx_t, if pointers have know fixed size, if operators +-*etc > act with them the same, in all machine > that should be as binary portability > > for me in 80% of cases is ok a 16 bit pointer > in 99% of cases is ok a 32 bit pointer > but if one has a file of 9 GB... what about puts that file all in > memory and use a pointer of 64 bit? [or 32+16 bit] > how is possible to write a C portable program that use a ponter of > 64bit? Do it however you would today. The only difference would be in my proposal you would no longer be doing it in core C, but only in extensions of C. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 01:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d20ngsce.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63832 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 12:13:04 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> > On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 2:56:14 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: >> <snip> >> >> Without a single concrete example where it matters, your argument >> >> is meaningless, and certainly not worth imposing restrictions >> >> on C implementations for a convenience that you don't even take >> >> advantage of. >> > >> > I disagree. >> >> Nothing you say here explains why you disagree with the specific point. >> It is a sound point that without even a single example of what you mean >> it would be absurd to change the language. > > I think there are valid points I'm making, but perhaps not in this > one area. And I get the impression from your posts you're simply > being overly critical of me because you don't like me I don't know you -- I only know what you say. It's certainly true that I don't like much of what you've said but then I don't think you've liked much of what I've said. We appear to inhabit very different programming planets. Richard was rather generous about me in his reply to you. I should correct his overly kind portrait and admit to an ungracious frisson when I see that you've posted -- what will Rick be wrong about today? I'm not proud of it, but there it is. You probably can't stop being wrong, but I'll try to stop liking it. It's a nasty character trait. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web