Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #146566 > unrolled thread
| Started by | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-10-04 13:00 -0400 |
| Last post | 2019-10-15 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 483 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 13:00 -0400
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-04 17:06 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 21:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 19:24 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 13:08 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-04 21:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 01:21 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 01:23 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 20:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-04 20:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 13:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 14:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 09:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 19:29 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 18:13 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 21:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-05 13:22 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 21:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 00:17 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 15:54 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-06 08:07 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 17:39 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 12:52 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-06 21:26 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 01:37 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 01:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 17:32 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 02:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 09:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-07 00:39 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 10:59 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 13:19 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 12:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 13:57 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 15:01 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 17:42 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 19:33 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 18:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 02:27 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 17:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 08:53 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 12:28 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-08 11:47 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:02 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 00:50 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 03:03 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 01:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 10:31 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 11:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 14:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 14:41 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 16:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 18:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 17:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 01:37 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-10 14:33 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 12:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-10 16:00 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 23:43 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 14:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:04 +0300
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 22:17 +0000
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 15:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 12:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 00:53 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 00:50 +0100
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-12 03:42 +0800
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 22:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-14 16:08 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 19:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 07:40 +1300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 20:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 08:33 +1300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 20:52 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 23:42 +0000
Re: Sort char array Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-10-15 16:40 +1300
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 05:10 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-14 12:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 12:33 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 14:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 15:35 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 16:15 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 20:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 20:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 10:40 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 20:31 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-09 12:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 22:21 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-09 21:31 +0000
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-09 15:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 00:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-10 10:40 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 15:58 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:37 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 19:56 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 00:56 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 11:04 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:33 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 10:57 +0100
Re: Sort char array mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-18 05:56 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 06:10 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 15:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-18 09:41 -0400
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 07:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 15:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-18 13:36 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 15:17 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 16:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 08:49 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 17:56 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 09:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 19:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-18 23:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 00:49 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 01:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 11:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 03:56 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 13:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-19 08:44 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 07:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 18:01 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 20:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 23:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-20 00:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 10:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 14:39 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 06:11 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:36 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 14:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 16:47 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 19:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 21:37 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-19 13:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-19 13:40 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-19 13:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-19 13:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:04 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 06:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:40 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 07:29 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 16:49 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 15:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 21:26 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 23:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 23:08 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-21 00:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:33 +0000
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:57 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 00:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 23:48 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 11:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-21 12:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 22:48 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-21 01:20 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-22 18:00 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-22 19:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 21:27 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 14:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-20 23:34 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-18 16:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 17:01 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-18 19:15 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 19:01 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 13:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-20 11:25 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-20 15:07 +0200
Re: Sort char array Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-10-18 16:58 +0000
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 19:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-15 03:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 12:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 04:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-15 14:30 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-18 05:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-19 00:31 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 04:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 10:30 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 02:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 12:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 11:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 13:23 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-13 13:30 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-14 16:13 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 02:00 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-11 10:33 +0200
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 01:01 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 11:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 12:18 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 16:15 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-10 21:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-10 20:36 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 17:16 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-11 03:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 22:36 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 12:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 00:26 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 00:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:18 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 12:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 15:00 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 15:29 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 19:13 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 19:04 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 20:13 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 01:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 22:52 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-12 23:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 10:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 16:42 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 18:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-13 19:50 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-14 12:27 -0700
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-15 10:26 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ike Naar <ike@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2019-10-14 21:02 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 01:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 01:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 12:16 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 10:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:16 +0300
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 03:34 -0700
Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 03:54 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 13:36 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2019-10-14 09:49 -0400
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 07:15 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 14:55 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-10-14 08:10 -0700
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-14 16:21 +0000
Re: Lack of language I/O support (was Re: Sort char array, many posts ago) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-10-14 09:25 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 14:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-14 16:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-14 23:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 00:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 05:30 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 16:05 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 07:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:58 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 14:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-14 19:28 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:17 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 00:26 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 11:55 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 04:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-16 18:17 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 05:43 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-17 18:01 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-19 00:39 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-19 06:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-11-08 18:38 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 22:03 -0800
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 18:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 00:25 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 23:44 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 13:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-13 19:05 -0400
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 13:16 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-13 00:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 14:18 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-13 23:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 23:52 -0400
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-15 11:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 18:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-15 20:31 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-15 20:34 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-15 22:05 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 13:27 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-16 10:11 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-16 12:42 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-16 04:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 05:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-18 10:18 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 05:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-23 05:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-14 15:32 +0000
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 23:59 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 06:08 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-10 01:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-11 07:53 -0400
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-11 11:20 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:16 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-11 14:43 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-11 11:51 -0700
Re: Sort char array raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2019-10-12 07:46 +0000
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 09:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 12:29 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 12:20 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-12 13:38 +0200
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 12:17 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 20:20 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-12 20:39 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 07:38 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-14 08:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-15 07:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 05:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-17 10:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-15 12:24 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-16 04:12 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-16 14:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-16 19:12 -0400
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-16 19:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-18 06:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:22 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:02 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 17:01 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 12:24 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 12:18 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 14:11 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 15:22 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 17:17 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-07 20:52 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 00:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-07 15:57 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 02:32 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 10:06 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:21 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 11:23 +0200
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 09:59 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 11:39 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 14:05 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 15:06 +0100
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:34 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 16:38 +0000
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 07:55 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 18:31 +0300
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-08 16:39 +0000
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 19:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 18:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 22:16 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 23:58 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 22:19 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:39 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:12 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 09:48 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 19:49 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 17:29 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-08 17:56 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-08 22:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 00:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 13:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 14:03 +0100
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-09 15:53 +0200
Re: Sort char array scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-10-09 14:39 +0000
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 15:58 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-10 22:43 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 01:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-11 01:00 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-12 12:01 -0400
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-12 20:35 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 21:17 +0300
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-14 07:45 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-14 14:53 +0300
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:02 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-09 10:36 +0100
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 09:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-07 09:00 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:02 +0100
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-06 19:57 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 06:38 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-10-05 17:14 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 13:06 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:24 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 05:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:04 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-06 18:23 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:41 +0300
Re: Sort char array Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-06 12:46 -0700
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-07 04:00 +0800
Re: Sort char array David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-07 09:46 +0200
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 22:49 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 12:24 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-08 09:28 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 23:49 +0300
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-08 18:18 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 14:36 +0300
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 15:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 05:54 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 16:01 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 06:31 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:30 +0300
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 10:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 06:26 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-05 02:46 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 00:19 -0400
Re: Sort char array Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2019-10-04 22:26 -0700
Re: OT Re: Sort char array Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-10-05 06:33 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 16:46 +0200
Re: Sort char array "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-05 16:54 +0200
Re: Sort char array "Oliver S." <Follow.Me@gmx.net> - 2019-10-05 17:14 +0200
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-05 11:34 -0400
Re: Sort char array Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-10-05 15:43 +0000
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-05 17:29 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Mateusz Viste <mateusz@wont.tell> - 2019-10-06 09:58 +0000
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 03:11 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 03:35 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:57 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 16:12 +0100
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:06 -0700
Re: Sort char array Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 07:28 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 17:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-08 18:31 +0800
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-08 03:59 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-08 14:34 +0300
Re: Sort char array Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2019-10-08 22:41 +0800
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 02:03 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 13:25 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:45 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 14:59 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:11 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:15 +0200
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 16:20 +0300
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 15:35 +0200
Re: Sort char array Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2019-10-06 13:04 -0400
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 08:44 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 18:01 +0200
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-06 09:42 -0700
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 19:21 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 21:51 +0100
Re: Sort char array Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 04:41 +0200
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 16:45 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2019-10-07 19:11 +0300
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-07 21:10 +0100
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 00:43 +0300
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-07 15:51 -0400
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 01:48 -0700
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-07 00:42 -0400
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 16:05 -0700
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 20:06 -0400
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:34 -0700
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 01:09 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 20:12 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 01:44 +0100
Re: Sort char array DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-10-07 22:02 -0400
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-08 03:24 +0100
Re: Sort char array Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-09 01:42 +0100
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 11:14 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 00:52 +0300
Re: Sort char array John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:20 -0700
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 00:20 +0300
Re: Sort char array James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-10-08 18:48 -0400
Re: Sort char array Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:07 +0300
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:29 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 09:43 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-09 09:37 -0700
Re: Sort char array Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-10-09 02:22 -0700
Re: Sort char array already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2019-10-15 11:19 -0700
Page 2 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 25 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-05 21:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <bi7mF.794000$Nw3.50126@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #146603 |
On 05/10/2019 21:22, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > No doubt you feel it's not worth the effort for you to write code > that conforms to the C standard, and I accept that it's not worth > it *for you*. But if you're giving advice about C to others, > don't expect us to accept your laziness without criticism. I noticed no one else felt it worth mentioning qsort. Just that might have been enough for the OP to look up the details for themselves, but I thought I'd post code that I'd actually tried.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 00:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y2xyn5op.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #146601 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 05/10/2019 18:13, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> So now you know that none of these were conforming C compilers! Mind >> you, the fact that most compilers, by default, accept a language that is >> not entirely unlike C should, by now, hardly be news to you. > I really don't care about that aspect any more. > > I write or generate code that is C-like, I pass it through compilers > that presumably are compiling a C-like language, and the results > generally work. > > Does it matter if it is not 100%, pure, conforming C? No, that's up to you. My concern was for the advice you gave. I didn't see the point of suggesting that the correct function parameter declarations should be changed to incorrect ones, rather than correcting the use of the parameters in the function body. I also considered it poor advice that if the compiler then warns about the now incorrect type (as all conforming C compilers must), a cast should be added that would also require at least a warning from any conforming compiler. It's all very well that you ave found a way that suits your particular needs, but it's not the best way, and OP appeared to be learning C. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 16:32 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191006163232.f55e8b21a0738265838316dc@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #146601 |
Bart: > I write or generate code that is C-like, I pass it through > compilers that presumably are compiling a C-like language, > and the results generally work. > > Does it matter if it is not 100%, pure, conforming C? Whenever I encounter code described as shiny immaculate plain vanilla C conforming to such and such standard, I feel more respect for its author than to one who describes his code as vaguely C-like, and *happening* to work with most compilers. If your efforts are not entirely egoistic and you wish to share your work with other people, confomance to a standard is blessing. I most sincerelly commend your views with respect to simplification on all levels: from code itself to dependencies to the build process. -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 15:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tenmF.2641638$c8w1.509089@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #146636 |
On 06/10/2019 14:32, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Bart:
>
>> I write or generate code that is C-like, I pass it through
>> compilers that presumably are compiling a C-like language,
>> and the results generally work.
>>
>> Does it matter if it is not 100%, pure, conforming C?
>
> Whenever I encounter code described as shiny immaculate
> plain vanilla C conforming to such and such standard, I feel
> more respect for its author than to one who describes his
> code as vaguely C-like, and *happening* to work with most
> compilers.
This is not of my doing. The C recognised by compilers is itself
'C-like', corresponding to some dialect that you to have to delve into
their docs to understand.
Plus there is the Option Effect, where you can compile program P with
one set of options (eg. the empty set), and get 0 warnings. Or compile
the same program with another set and get many thousands of warnings.
Which is actually the correct verdict on the program; is P a valid
program or not?
It seems this depends on how the compiler is invoked. If the correctness
of a program depends on those choices, then if built as stipulated to
get 0 warnings, the program can be considered correct.
My current set of applications can be compiled to C that is built as
follows on this set of targets:
Windows-64: gcc -m64 Pc64.c -oP.exe
tcc -m64 Pc64.c -luser32
bcc Pc64
Windows-32: tcc -m32 Pc32.c -luser32
Linux-64: gcc -m64 Pu64.c -oP -lm -ldl
Linux-32: gcc -m32 Pu32.c -oP -lm -ldl
tcc Pu32.c -lm -ldl
All with 0 warnings now, even using -std=c99 and -std=c11.
The Pxxx C files are generated as follows (on Windows, cross-compiling
for Linux):
mc P -c -out:Pc64.c Windows
mc32 P -c -out:Pc32.c
mu P -c -out:Pu64.c Linux
mu32 P -c -out:Pu32.c
(Without -c, it would invoke the C compiler directly, but I want the .c
file.)
If your efforts are not entirely egoistic and
> you wish to share your work with other people, confomance to
> a standard is blessing.
That would great, but I've found on open source C projects, that is
worthless, as usually they are highly dependent on specific compilers,
or options, or makefiles, or configure scripts, or bits of scripting
languages. Or for Windows, they use 'solution' or 'project' files
specific to MSVC and VS.
People take all the complexities involved in building dozens of related
project modules across platforms and compilers, package them in a
makefile (or a hierarchy of makefiles), and consider that a solution.
That is just brushing it all under the carpet.
> I most sincerelly commend your views with respect to
> simplification on all levels: from code itself to
> dependencies to the build process.
Then you would like my latest feature. While I can take the dozens of
modules and support files in a project, and turn that into a single
self-contained C file, that is not the true source code (which is not in C).
I can now also generate a single file version of the true sources, as
readable as the original, and which can be built directly from that file
without unpacking.
Here's an example: https://github.com/sal55/qx/blob/master/rpi/mu32.ma
The directory at the start involves sizes and offsets, and it would be a
simple exercise to extract the original files, but they are readable as-is.
I used this to copy true sources to Linux systems as one simple file.
(The file-flattening process here does not work with all applications,
especially when two files have different paths but the same name. I'm
working on that.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 08:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8636g5ap5m.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #146601 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Does it matter if it is not 100%, pure, conforming C? It does if you present some code as being C when you know it isn't. Or maybe you don't mind being a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 17:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ENomF.2651438$c8w1.2143048@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #146645 |
On 06/10/2019 16:07, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Does it matter if it is not 100%, pure, conforming C?
>
> It does if you present some code as being C when you
> know it isn't. Or maybe you don't mind being a liar.
>
You might think a C compiler would tell you if an input wasn't C, or
wasn't the C it was designed to compile. And if it says nothing, what
does one conclude from that?
This is the code in question, with stricmp changed to strcmp so it works
under Linux (and which I never claimed to be anything actually, I was
just giving helpful hints for the OP):
--------------------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int mystrcmp(char** s, char** t){
return strcmp(*s, *t);
}
void psort(int n, char *x[]) {
qsort(x,n,sizeof(char*), (void*)mystrcmp);
}
int main(void) {
char *str[]={"one","two","three","four","five","six"};
psort(6,str);
for (int i=0; i<6; ++i) printf("%s\n",str[i]);
}
--------------------------------------------------
Here's what happens when I compile it [c.c] on Windows:
C:\c>gcc c.c
C:\c>gcc -std=c99 c.c
C:\c>gcc -std=c11 c.c
C:\c>
And under Linux:
$ gcc /c/c.c
$ gcc -std=c99 /c/c.c
$ gcc -std=c11 /c/c.c
$
So, nothing. Whatever variation of 'C' that is accepted by such
invocations, that's the C I'm submitting to it. Why do think I'm lying
about anything, other than you have a need to be nasty?
You have to use -Wpedantic before you get even a warning about object
pointer/function pointer conversions. Something tells me it doesn't take
such a thing seriously. And you lot are taking it FAR too seriously.
BTW here's exactly the same program, expressed in a superior systems
language.
This language does NOT forbid conversions between object and pointer
types, yet a C compiler for the same machine, does so. Why this paradox?
----------------------------------------
import clib
proc start =
static var []ichar str =
("one","two","three","four","five","six")
psort(str.len, &str)
for i in str do
println str[i]
od
end
callback function mystrcmp(ref ichar s,t)int32 =
strcmp(s^, t^)
end
proc psort(int n, ref[]ichar x) =
qsort(x, n, ichar.bytes, cast(mystrcmp))
end
----------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8spxwt12.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #146651 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> You have to use -Wpedantic before you get even a warning about object
> pointer/function pointer conversions. Something tells me it doesn't take
> such a thing seriously. And you lot are taking it FAR too seriously.
"gcc -std=c11" is not a conforming C compiler. "gcc -std=c11 -Wpedantic"
is (modulo bugs). You know this and you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 21:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <L5smF.695441$VT3.152510@fx19.am4> |
| In reply to | #146657 |
On 06/10/2019 20:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> You have to use -Wpedantic before you get even a warning about object >> pointer/function pointer conversions. Something tells me it doesn't take >> such a thing seriously. And you lot are taking it FAR too seriously. > > "gcc -std=c11" is not a conforming C compiler. "gcc -std=c11 -Wpedantic" > is (modulo bugs). You know this and you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. > And you know that I and probably a million others run C compilers without any such options. If it was that critical, they would all be running in 'pedantic' mode all the time. It's the pragmatic approach when you just want to get things done. I've got more interesting things to do than jump through hoops to get around a pointless restriction in a language which I know is irrelevant on not only my targets of interest, but probably most others. If I go to rextester.com, the default set of gcc options is -Wall -std=gnu99 -O2 -o a.out. No sign of -Wpedantic. Similar story with godbolt.org. The first 2 C tutorials I googled showed the use of gcc without -pedantic. So what's happening, no one is interested in compiling conforming C programs? I've convinced it is just in this group that people are so uptight about it, but elsewhere no one really cares.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 01:37 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191007013756.b621d77b40d0c0657376e2ee@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #146661 |
Bart: > And you know that I and probably a million others run C > compilers without any such options. If it was that > critical, they would all be running in 'pedantic' mode all > the time. I for one am using `gcc' in pedantic mode via a simple makefile. -- () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OnvmF.779760$RU2.307870@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #146661 |
On 06/10/2019 21:26, Bart wrote: > On 06/10/2019 20:52, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> You have to use -Wpedantic before you get even a warning about object >>> pointer/function pointer conversions. Something tells me it doesn't take >>> such a thing seriously. And you lot are taking it FAR too seriously. >> >> "gcc -std=c11" is not a conforming C compiler. "gcc -std=c11 -Wpedantic" >> is (modulo bugs). You know this and you stubbornly refuse to >> acknowledge it. >> > > And you know that I and probably a million others run C compilers > without any such options. If it was that critical, they would all be > running in 'pedantic' mode all the time. Sorry, I should have never responded to the first post about my using (void*) to convert a function pointer. This sort of nonsense cause me so much grief in this group earlier this year, that I was heartily sick of the whole business. I got rid of most of my C compilers, deleted most C projects, and omitted C targets in my new compilers. But I recently created a new C backend, because I needed the functionality. And it was working extremely well. Until some people said my code wasn't real C, that I was claiming it was C but I was lying, that it's not C unless it passes -Wpedantic (because of my function pointer conversions, my code doesn't). I'm not going do my head in again trying to pointlessly meet those standards. I'm not writing in C, I using my language in which I, as author, have decreed that such conversions are well defined, even if they are frowned upon by the C language. Even POSIX C says those conversions have to work (eg. for dlsym) so I guess such programs don't conform either. It is a nonsense that such an innocuous conversion, which is perfectly well-defined for platforms using x86 and ARM, can't be used because such C code might not work on some odd-ball microcontrollers. Well, my applications wouldn't work on those anyway. So I'll leave you guys to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-06 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzhidv1ie.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #146667 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Even POSIX C says those conversions have to work (eg. for dlsym) so I
> guess such programs don't conform either.
That's not exactly what POSIX says. It only guarantees
the conversion for a void* pointer returned by dlsym().
An implementation could treat such pointers specially, say as a
pointer into a table of functions pointers.
I could explain what "conforming program" and "strictly conforming"
mean, and how they relate to this kind of conversion, but there's no
point, is there?
> It is a nonsense that such an innocuous conversion, which is perfectly
> well-defined for platforms using x86 and ARM, can't be used because such
> C code might not work on some odd-ball microcontrollers. Well, my
> applications wouldn't work on those anyway.
You had a choice between portable code and gratuitously non-portable
code. As usual, you chose the latter, and you refuse to acknowledge
the possibility that there might be valid reasons to choose the
former.
It's boring.
> So I'll leave you guys to it.
You've threatened to leave this newsgroup before.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 02:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I8wmF.687211$665.467353@fx28.am4> |
| In reply to | #146668 |
On 07/10/2019 01:32, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > You had a choice between portable code and gratuitously non-portable > code. What do you mean? In what way was it non-portable? According to you it's non-conforming on /every/ platform! Actually, the programs I write now, in my language, are portable (subject to special dependencies such as GUI libraries) across 6 platforms. So I take the subject seriously. I have a good idea of what the problem areas are, and they aren't function pointer conversions, which are a mostly irrelevant artefact of the C language. As usual, you chose the latter, and you refuse to acknowledge > the possibility that there might be valid reasons to choose the > former. The conversion I used ought to work perfectly well on any system the OP is likely to be using. It was a demonstration of an approach, but not intended to be 100% perfect code, and for me was a throwaway piece of code. If the OP had compilation problems because they like using -pedantic, then they can fix it themselves or get other help with that. BTW here's a quote from you around 2006 (in some other forum), in reply to someone saying that were going to try this on multiple platforms: "Sure, have fun. It's entirely possible that every platform you try will allow function pointers to be converted to void*, but that won't really tell you anything about the standard." People write programs in order to do something useful, not to write 100% conforming code! > You've threatened to leave this newsgroup before. I didn't say I'm leaving. I'm just not going to rise to such bait. Is there a charter to this group that says people can only post code that passes gcc -std=cxx -pedantic?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 09:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qneq74$ork$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146669 |
On 07/10/2019 03:02, Bart wrote: > On 07/10/2019 01:32, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] > >> You had a choice between portable code and gratuitously non-portable >> code. > > What do you mean? In what way was it non-portable? According to you it's > non-conforming on /every/ platform! > This is the way I see things: When you program yourself, you can use whatever language variant you want, with whatever level of portability (across cpus, OS's, compilers, etc.) that you want. Personally, in my normal programming, I never use -Wpedantic - because I make use of a number of gcc extensions (and other compiler extensions on other compilers). I also use "uint8_t" rather than "unsigned char" or "uint_least8_t", because I know my targets support 8-bit types. And so on. But while I am happy to limit portability when there is an advantage to it, I don't do so pointlessly. If code can be written in a realistically more portable way without extra cost (either developer time cost, or run-time cost), then I do so. When giving /general/ help or advice about C, however, I will try my best to stick to standard C. That does not mean it will always be portable to all platforms or all compilers, but it is as close as I can reasonably get. If you want to help someone with their code, and you are not being careful about it being correct C (following the standards), then I think it is fine to do so and write "this might not be standard C - it's a bit of a hack, but will probably work on most compilers". That is, IMHO, entirely fine - honest, helpful and informative. It is when someone claims, or implies, that code is conformant C code, and it is needlessly non-conformant, that people get annoyed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mark.bluemel@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 00:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2c6fd6e-be6b-4320-b4ce-09f574f40fd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #146668 |
On Monday, 7 October 2019 01:32:33 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > So I'll leave you guys to it. > > You've threatened to leave this newsgroup before. s/threatened/offered/ Can I propose Bluemel's law please? "Any discussion on comp.lang.c will eventually resolve to teaching Bart how to make gcc a conforming C compiler".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 10:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0EmF.2667134$c8w1.1556251@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #146672 |
On 07/10/2019 08:39, mark.bluemel@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 7 October 2019 01:32:33 UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> So I'll leave you guys to it.
>>
>> You've threatened to leave this newsgroup before.
>
> s/threatened/offered/
>
> Can I propose Bluemel's law please?
>
> "Any discussion on comp.lang.c will eventually resolve to teaching Bart
> how to make gcc a conforming C compiler".
Why gcc? Why not tcc? gcc is not the only free compiler around.
tcc accepts '-pedantic' but will not report anything amiss with my void*
function pointer conversion.
On Windows I primarily use my own 'bcc', which doesn't report any error
either.
When I write or generate source code that I label as 'C', it is code
that will be accepted by any of:
gcc prog.c
tcc prog.c
bcc prog
If that code is not the 100% standards-conformant C that is favoured in
this heavily gcc/Linux-centric group, then I don't care.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 13:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191007131948.c9f28d44bcd105e7a153069a@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #146678 |
Bart: >Why gcc? Why not tcc? gcc is not the only free compiler >around. > >tcc accepts '-pedantic' but will not report anything amiss >with my void* function pointer conversion. I belive tcc may omit this check it for reasons of simplicity of code, but you are free to report it on the mailing list. >that will be accepted by any of: > > gcc prog.c > tcc prog.c > bcc prog If you value the convenience of not passing any parameters, redefine `gcc' and `tcc' on your system to invoke: gcc -ansi -pedantic tcc -ansi -pedantic or something like that. The -pedantic option is of course poor desing. The compiler shall enforce a C standard by default, and relax it only when explicitely asked to, e.g. with a -slipshod option, but gcc has so thoroughly usurped the world that other compilers try to mimic its CLI interface. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 12:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2xFmF.867378$yH4.431562@fx18.am4> |
| In reply to | #146679 |
On 07/10/2019 11:19, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Bart:
>
>> Why gcc? Why not tcc? gcc is not the only free compiler
>> around.
>>
>> tcc accepts '-pedantic' but will not report anything amiss
>> with my void* function pointer conversion.
>
> I belive tcc may omit this check it for reasons of
> simplicity of code, but you are free to report it on the
> mailing list.
Yet it will manage to generate the code with no problem. Take this program:
int main(void) {
void* p;
void(*f)(void);
p=f;
f=p;
}
This is the code for those assignments with tcc (all for x64):
-- -- -- -- mov D0, qword [Dframe-16]
-- -- -- -- mov qword [Dframe-8], D0
-- -- -- -- mov D0, qword [Dframe-8]
-- -- -- -- mov qword [Dframe-16], D0
(Disassembled from .exe as tcc doesn't support -S). This is gcc's -S output:
mov rax, QWORD PTR -8[rbp]
mov QWORD PTR -16[rbp], rax
mov rax, QWORD PTR -16[rbp]
mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], rax
And here is bcc's output:
mov D0, [Dframe-16]
mov [Dframe-8], D0
mov [Dframe-16], D0
All perfectly well-defined, and exactly as expected: just moving a
64-bit bit-pattern.
So what purpose does -pedantic serve here?
>> that will be accepted by any of:
>>
>> gcc prog.c
>> tcc prog.c
>> bcc prog
>
> If you value the convenience of not passing any parameters,
> redefine `gcc' and `tcc' on your system to invoke:
>
> gcc -ansi -pedantic
> tcc -ansi -pedantic
>
> or something like that.
Those compilers are not literally invoked like that (except bcc), unless
you want the output to be in a.out and it doesn't use the maths library.
But that is not the issue, as it is easy to write scripts for such things.
> The -pedantic option is of course poor desing. The compiler
> shall enforce a C standard by default, and relax it only
> when explicitely asked to, e.g. with a -slipshod option, but
> gcc has so thoroughly usurped the world that other compilers
> try to mimic its CLI interface.
This is what I've said in the past, because otherwise these compilers
let through things that would never get past any of my non-C compilers.
And -pedantic is not enough, it needs to be -pedantic-errors or some
such option.
The problem here though is that I simply don't agree that void*/fnptr
conversions should be regarded as errors. Implementation-defined perhaps
or some lesser category.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 13:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qnf974$aiu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146682 |
On 07/10/2019 13:42, Bart wrote:
> On 07/10/2019 11:19, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> Bart:
>>
>>> Why gcc? Why not tcc? gcc is not the only free compiler
>>> around.
>>>
>>> tcc accepts '-pedantic' but will not report anything amiss
>>> with my void* function pointer conversion.
>>
>> I belive tcc may omit this check it for reasons of
>> simplicity of code, but you are free to report it on the
>> mailing list.
>
> Yet it will manage to generate the code with no problem. Take this program:
>
> int main(void) {
> void* p;
> void(*f)(void);
>
> p=f;
> f=p;
> }
>
>
> This is the code for those assignments with tcc (all for x64):
>
> -- -- -- -- mov D0, qword [Dframe-16]
> -- -- -- -- mov qword [Dframe-8], D0
> -- -- -- -- mov D0, qword [Dframe-8]
> -- -- -- -- mov qword [Dframe-16], D0
>
> (Disassembled from .exe as tcc doesn't support -S). This is gcc's -S
> output:
>
> mov rax, QWORD PTR -8[rbp]
> mov QWORD PTR -16[rbp], rax
> mov rax, QWORD PTR -16[rbp]
> mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], rax
That's not what I get when I compile it. I get an empty main(), and
some warnings about unused variables. Oh, wait - we are back to the
idiotic "it worked on my tiny, unrealistic unoptimised test therefore it
is perfectly valid code" attitude.
The big issue with doing this kind of undefined behaviour code is that
tests are worthless. It does not matter what code your test case
generates, you have absolutely no guarantees that it will work in
practice with real code.
>
> And here is bcc's output:
>
> mov D0, [Dframe-16]
> mov [Dframe-8], D0
> mov [Dframe-16], D0
>
> All perfectly well-defined, and exactly as expected: just moving a
> 64-bit bit-pattern.
>
> So what purpose does -pedantic serve here?
It might help you stop writing bad code? It might help you learn to
write code that gives the results you want because the language and the
compiler specifications say that's what you will get, rather than
relying on luck?
>
>
>>> that will be accepted by any of:
>>>
>>> gcc prog.c
>>> tcc prog.c
>>> bcc prog
>>
>> If you value the convenience of not passing any parameters,
>> redefine `gcc' and `tcc' on your system to invoke:
>>
>> gcc -ansi -pedantic
>> tcc -ansi -pedantic
>>
>> or something like that.
>
> Those compilers are not literally invoked like that (except bcc), unless
> you want the output to be in a.out and it doesn't use the maths library.
>
> But that is not the issue, as it is easy to write scripts for such things.
>
>> The -pedantic option is of course poor desing. The compiler
>> shall enforce a C standard by default, and relax it only
>> when explicitely asked to, e.g. with a -slipshod option, but
>> gcc has so thoroughly usurped the world that other compilers
>> try to mimic its CLI interface.
>
> This is what I've said in the past, because otherwise these compilers
> let through things that would never get past any of my non-C compilers.
>
> And -pedantic is not enough, it needs to be -pedantic-errors or some
> such option.
Add -pendantic-errors if you like.
>
> The problem here though is that I simply don't agree that void*/fnptr
> conversions should be regarded as errors. Implementation-defined perhaps
> or some lesser category.
>
If you have an issue with the way C is specified, there are procedures
for filing defect reports or suggestions. (I don't know what they are,
and they might be a bit bureaucratic, but they do exist.) If you think
gcc should support such conversions as a documented extension, file a
"feature request" bug with gcc.
But at the moment, you are like someone who thinks the 30 mph speed
limit on a road is wrong, and they have driven it at 40 mph several
times without an accident, therefore they are justified in treating it
as 40 mph road and recommending others drive it at 40 mph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 15:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XyHmF.665592$qd4.648019@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #146683 |
On 07/10/2019 12:57, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/10/2019 13:42, Bart wrote:
>> mov rax, QWORD PTR -8[rbp]
>> mov QWORD PTR -16[rbp], rax
>> mov rax, QWORD PTR -16[rbp]
>> mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], rax
>
>
> That's not what I get when I compile it. I get an empty main(), and
> some warnings about unused variables. Oh, wait - we are back to the
> idiotic "it worked on my tiny, unrealistic unoptimised test therefore it
> is perfectly valid code" attitude.
It works also on 100,000 lines of generated C. Or 600,000 lines
including all combinations of target OSes and machine word sizes. Code
that uses function pointer tables designed around void* extensively.
BTW one of the programs uses a table of function addresses like this:
static void * msysc__fnaddresses[]= {
&start,
&qq_getinputoptions,
.....
&q_libs_getintlib,
0};
(Some 1400 entries.) What should the array element type be if not void* ?
(That app builds, at runtime, tables of byte-code handlers. It does that
by searching another, global table of function names for functions with
a particular pattern of name that handles the combinations of byte-code
and data-types. It then picks up the function pointer from the above table.)
> The big issue with doing this kind of undefined behaviour code is that
> tests are worthless. It does not matter what code your test case
> generates, you have absolutely no guarantees that it will work in
> practice with real code.
You're missing the point. Those compilers generated what would be the
correct code, if that restriction wasn't in the language.
How did they manage that, by chance? It's because it's perfectly clear
what the code should be.
BTW you can get around this restriction by writing the assignments like
this:
p=(void*)(intptr_t)f;
f=(void(*)(void))(intptr_t)p;
(Where presumably the argument that f and p might be different sizes
goes out of the window.). Unsurprisingly, it generates exactly the same
code:
mov rax, QWORD PTR -8[rbp]
mov QWORD PTR -16[rbp], rax
mov rax, QWORD PTR -16[rbp]
mov QWORD PTR -8[rbp], rax
If there is a way to legally convert such pointers, why don't compilers
do that? If it needs an explicit cast, then (void*) should suffice as
indication that the programmer intends that to happen.
The downsides of this double cast, is having to go and dig up the exact
function signature needed converting to function pointer, and having the
cast now being an extra piece of maintenance to do.
(This also makes it tricky to use in generated code, especially where
the function in question is from the C library, and the alternate HLL
may have needed to use a modified declaration from the original.)
>> And here is bcc's output:
>>
>> mov D0, [Dframe-16]
>> mov [Dframe-8], D0
>> mov [Dframe-16], D0
>>
>> All perfectly well-defined, and exactly as expected: just moving a
>> 64-bit bit-pattern.
>>
>> So what purpose does -pedantic serve here?
>
> It might help you stop writing bad code?
No, it stops me running my programs on Linux systems. Or least makes it
much harder to compile because of the 1000s of lines of messages that
needs to be ignored.
The programs run otherwise well enough that I can run some of tools on
Linux (which are interpreted code and need that 43,000-line generated C
program to compilable).
So why should I care? What do you think I should do, spend another month
refining my C generator, or rewriting my applications, so that they
compile with -pedantic, rather than simply not using that option? What a
waste of time!
I've already spent 3 weeks dealing with issues that would fill a dozen
threads; this is one of the most insignificant and simplest to deal
with, because it is so easily ignored.
> If you have an issue with the way C is specified, there are procedures
> for filing defect reports or suggestions.
No thanks. I know how to use my tools. That's what you guys are always
going on about, right? I guess that knowing when to leave out an option
is not as good as knowing when to add it!
(I don't know what they are,
> and they might be a bit bureaucratic, but they do exist.) If you think
> gcc should support such conversions as a documented extension, file a
> "feature request" bug with gcc.
>
> But at the moment, you are like someone who thinks the 30 mph speed
> limit on a road is wrong,
Wrong analogy. This like not being able to drive my car at all in the UK
(-pedantic-errors), because I don't carry a breathalyser kit in my glove
box. And the restriction exists because it is a requirement in France.
And this for someone who doesn't drink anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-07 17:42 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20191007174244.385138503569a8bc6d4eec9d@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #146686 |
Bart:
>BTW one of the programs uses a table of function addresses
>like this:
>
>static void * msysc__fnaddresses[]= {
> &start,
> &qq_getinputoptions,
> .....
> &q_libs_getintlib,
> 0};
>
>(Some 1400 entries.) What should the array element type be
>if not void* ?
If all of them are pointers to funcions, why not make it:
void ( msysc__fnaddresses[] )( void )
>If there is a way to legally convert such pointers, why
>don't compilers do that? If it needs an explicit cast, then
>(void*) should suffice as indication that the programmer
>intends that to happen.
Conversion between pointers to functions and data is absurd
from the human viewpoint, for data and funcions belong to
different conceptual domains. You cannot read from or write
to a function pointer. You cannot invoke a data pointer.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web