Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #401667 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-06 15:45 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-10-05 04:32 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 496 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 15:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 15:52 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-06 16:52 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-06 21:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 09:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 11:35 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 13:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 13:55 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 15:33 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-08 00:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 00:35 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-07 17:43 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:24 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 20:16 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 21:37 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 17:42 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-08 03:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-08 16:40 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 20:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 12:32 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 14:30 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 16:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 18:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 18:37 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 20:12 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 22:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 21:15 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 21:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 21:39 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 14:41 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 23:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:10 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 09:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 14:43 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:08 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:14 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-11 09:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-09-14 19:14 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 08:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 02:45 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 15:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:14 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 15:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:41 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 08:05 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 10:23 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 16:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 17:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:11 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 08:25 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 15:53 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 17:42 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 17:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 19:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 18:38 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-09 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 17:12 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 23:59 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:30 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 06:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:13 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:43 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 07:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-08 00:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-09 01:59 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 19:12 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-09 21:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 21:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 21:18 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-09 23:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 08:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 13:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:28 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 14:33 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 15:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 16:57 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 01:04 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:54 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 18:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 18:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 20:19 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 20:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-11 09:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 12:46 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 14:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-11 13:41 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 14:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:04 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 21:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 21:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 16:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 09:48 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-11 00:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 15:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-11 00:48 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 17:11 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 09:09 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 12:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 12:40 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 11:55 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 14:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 14:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:00 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 14:24 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:44 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 16:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 16:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 17:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 17:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 10:53 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 18:58 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:46 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-12 22:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 15:40 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 10:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 10:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 11:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 11:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 13:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-13 05:29 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 13:43 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2026-09-13 10:53 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 13:46 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 15:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 15:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 16:34 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 16:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-13 18:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 21:14 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 15:01 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 18:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-14 20:21 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 22:54 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-14 23:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 09:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 09:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 10:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-15 12:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 11:37 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 13:01 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-05 01:57 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 18:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-14 22:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-14 21:03 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 00:33 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 12:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 20:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:34 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 19:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 15:23 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-12 07:45 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-11 00:37 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 01:44 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 07:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 14:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 14:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 02:42 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 23:41 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 01:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-15 07:39 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-15 11:28 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-15 21:56 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-15 21:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 00:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 02:21 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 09:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 11:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 13:47 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 15:20 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 00:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 16:59 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 01:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 19:43 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 09:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 02:04 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 18:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 11:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 13:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:44 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 17:53 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 21:22 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:58 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 21:06 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-22 21:07 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:34 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 12:52 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 13:15 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 15:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 15:25 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 17:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 16:46 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 20:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 20:19 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:55 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-17 23:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 20:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:44 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-17 23:48 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-18 00:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 01:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:50 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 17:45 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-18 18:34 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 18:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-09-18 20:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 13:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 13:20 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 17:30 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 21:00 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 10:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 12:52 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 01:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:55 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 20:41 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-22 01:53 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-22 11:28 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-22 11:34 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:00 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-09-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 16:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 01:29 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-19 22:01 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 20:28 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-18 05:42 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-18 08:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 10:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 16:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:29 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 20:14 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 12:42 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-19 13:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-19 00:19 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 02:06 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 20:20 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Steven G. Kargl" <sgk@REMOVEtroutmask.apl.washington.edu> - 2026-09-19 03:26 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:56 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 11:08 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-19 13:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 10:45 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-19 15:09 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 16:17 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-19 09:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 13:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 14:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 17:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 11:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 20:07 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 12:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 22:57 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-19 17:27 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-19 20:09 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 12:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 12:42 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 15:08 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 14:22 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 14:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 23:24 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-21 15:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-21 17:45 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-21 20:54 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-22 15:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-22 21:02 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-20 15:58 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-20 23:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 16:17 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 15:18 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-09-17 21:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 21:05 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 14:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 17:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 16:33 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 20:26 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:25 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 12:36 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 13:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-17 14:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-17 14:32 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:17 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 15:24 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-18 09:06 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 02:08 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-18 11:13 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 17:33 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 19:19 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 18:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 20:21 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 13:16 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 15:26 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-16 15:58 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 19:13 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-09-16 18:30 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 20:30 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-16 21:16 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-17 02:56 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:32 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 19:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-05 02:15 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 03:22 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-14 11:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 16:03 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 16:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-22 23:27 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-23 01:01 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-23 23:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 02:00 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-24 02:41 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-23 20:23 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 11:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 01:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-25 03:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 11:38 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-26 02:49 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 11:44 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 14:03 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-28 00:05 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 00:56 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-29 14:27 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 02:02 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-30 11:18 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-30 13:37 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-30 17:17 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-09-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-30 22:39 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 15:23 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-02 02:38 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-02 09:17 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-25 12:17 +0300
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-25 11:31 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-26 02:34 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-24 08:50 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-24 11:31 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-24 11:29 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-26 11:59 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-29 04:06 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 04:47 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-29 23:49 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-30 12:19 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 10:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-09 10:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 11:40 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 12:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-09-09 15:23 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 23:07 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 15:52 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 01:00 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-18 10:17 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 09:29 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-09-19 13:46 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 09:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-10 06:16 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 14:38 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 18:36 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-10 10:11 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-11 00:48 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-29 03:18 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-09-18 12:58 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-22 23:21 +0000
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:47 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-07 09:53 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-07 23:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-07 16:04 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 04:06 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-07 20:05 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 15:32 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:59 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 13:09 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 14:15 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 14:35 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 14:49 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 16:05 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 16:18 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 09:45 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-09-08 20:41 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 12:39 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 15:55 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 18:02 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 17:39 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 18:47 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 18:19 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-08 19:24 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 19:26 -0700
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 03:25 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:13 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-09-09 07:38 -0600
Re: Official list of top C annoyances "Johann \"Myrkraverk\" Oskarsson" <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-09-09 22:16 +0800
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 09:02 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2026-09-09 12:50 +0000
And then we reached C# (was Re: Official list of top C annoyances) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-09-09 08:51 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-09-08 14:54 +0100
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 16:10 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 14:22 +0200
Re: Official list of top C annoyances fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 04:32 +0200
Page 19 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 25 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-20 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118pm2s$3g72a$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402306 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
[...]
> The proper object file from a C compiler when no explicit
> object file has been specified is a.out[*].
>
> That Window implementations of GCC changes that to .exe is erroneous, as the
> output of the compile need not be an executable file; it may
> be an intermediate object file or a shared object.
That isn't quite accurate.
On my Ubuntu system, "a.out" is the default output name for both "as"
(the assembler) and "ld" (the linker). For "as", "a.out" is an object
file. For "ld", "a.out" is an executable.
As far as I can tell, gcc never invokes "as" in a way that
produces an object file named "a.out", at least in normal usage.
"gcc hello.c" produces "a.exe", an executable. "as hello.s" produces
"a.out", a non-executable object file.
gcc under Cygwin (a Unix-like emulation layer for Windows) does
produce "a.exe" as its default output file. That "a.exe" is an
executable, named with a ".exe" suffix because Windows requires it.
If you invoke "as" directly on Cygwin, it produces a non-executable
object file named "a.out". I see the same behavior with MSYS2.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <b9TrS.40141$iUXd.3583@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #402282 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 18/09/2026 21:07, bart wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> So what's the name of the assembler proper? It seems everything comes
>> under the 'gcc' umbrella, out of necessity rather than convenience,
>> since the different components - cc1, as, ld - are pretty much unusable
>> by themselves.
>
>"as" is the name of the assembler "proper". It is not part of gcc, and
>nor is "ld". ("ld" and "as" are both part of the "binutils" project.)
>And no one else has suggested that "as" is not usable by itself - merely
>that this is not the /primary/ use-case. This is different for "cc1",
>which is absolutely intended only as an internal program called from
>"gcc", and there is not likely to be any reason to run it directly.
>
>Note that failing to print a help message when you run "as" without
>parameters does not make it "pretty much unusable".
>
>Also note that in the *nix world, the behaviour of gcc, cc1, as, ld and
>other related programs here are quite normal. They follow conventions
>used by other toolchains found in the *nix world, and people can and do
>mix and match to a certain extent. I think that's less common now that
>the *nix world has pretty much settled on Linux and BSD, with the
>commercial unix systems and their dedicated toolchains no longer as popular.
And note also that as(1) was _never_ designed to be a interactive
assembler. Amongst other things, as(1) provides no way to edit
the input interactively.
It's not like a BASIC or Python interpreter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tTh <tth@none.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 21:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118hgfa$12av$3@news.gegeweb.eu> |
| In reply to | #402179 |
On 9/17/26 17:46, bart wrote:
> I mentioned in another post about Clang choosing to write error
> messages /in the same colour/ as my console background.
$ some_command_who_change_color | cat
problem solved.
--
** **
* tTh des Bourtoulots *
* http://maison.tth.netlib.re/ *
** **
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 21:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <118hh6g$klns$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402185 |
On 17/09/2026 20:53, tTh wrote:
> On 9/17/26 17:46, bart wrote:
>
>> I mentioned in another post about Clang choosing to write error
>> messages /in the same colour/ as my console background.
>
> $ some_command_who_change_color | cat
>
> problem solved.
>
You're deflecting again.
It's not my product to fix; it should just work. Here's what happens
when I type 'clang' in a console:
https://github.com/bart-2026/langs/blob/main/clang.png
I had to use a screen shot to capture it. What do you think the error says?
Here's what happens when I type 'tcc':
c:\c>tcc
Tiny C Compiler 0.9.27 - Copyright (C) 2001-2006 Fabrice Bellard
Usage: tcc [options...] [-o outfile] [-c] infile(s)...
tcc [options...] -run infile [arguments...]
General options:
...
And yet people look down their nose at it!
This is mine in action:
c:\c>bcc
BCC Compiler 7.x
Usage:
bcc prog[.c] Compile prog.c to prog.exe
bcc -r prog[.c] Compile prog.c and run
bcc -i prog[.c] Compile prog.c and interpret
bcc -help Show all options
And yet Clang can't even display a fucking error message.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 14:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <118gu0b$291rh$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #402172 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 17/09/2026 14:15, bart wrote:
>>
>> I got a lot more output than that. Then I noticed you said 'amongst
>> other things'. So -v does not produce less output than --verbose!
>>
>
> Yes. You might think it strange, but I only posted the relevant lines
> here. There were a total of 31 lines from that command - it was not
> difficult to spot the ones relevant to the include paths.
>
>> On my C compiler I used to have an option -paths which listed all the
>> include paths it would use.
>>
>> I'm surprised that gcc, amongst it 1000s of options, doesn't have a
>> dedicated one for this.
>>
>
> I've never needed to see the list of paths before - they are all
> entirely obvious and standard, and "just work". Why would a compiler
> need to add a specific option for something that is rarely required and
> where there is a simple and fairly obvious common option ("-v", or
> "--verbose") to get the information?
For the benefit of configure scripts? And for symmetry? I find
options like:
-print-search-dirs
-print-multiarch
...
-print-sysroot-headers-suffix
but the last one apparently does not work in normal install (even
for cross compilers), and the other seem to give no info about headers.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 17:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118h062$d1i8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402176 |
On 17/09/2026 16:38, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 17/09/2026 14:15, bart wrote:
>>>
>>> I got a lot more output than that. Then I noticed you said 'amongst
>>> other things'. So -v does not produce less output than --verbose!
>>>
>>
>> Yes. You might think it strange, but I only posted the relevant lines
>> here. There were a total of 31 lines from that command - it was not
>> difficult to spot the ones relevant to the include paths.
>>
>>> On my C compiler I used to have an option -paths which listed all the
>>> include paths it would use.
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that gcc, amongst it 1000s of options, doesn't have a
>>> dedicated one for this.
>>>
>>
>> I've never needed to see the list of paths before - they are all
>> entirely obvious and standard, and "just work". Why would a compiler
>> need to add a specific option for something that is rarely required and
>> where there is a simple and fairly obvious common option ("-v", or
>> "--verbose") to get the information?
>
> For the benefit of configure scripts?
Some people need to write configure scripts. I don't. I neither know
nor care what people might want in such configure scripts, but I feel
confident that if this was actually something that people needed to do
on a regular basis, either such a flag would have been added to gcc, or
someone would have published a simple recipe or script for getting the
information out of gcc.
What I wrote was that /I/ have never needed such a list of include
paths. And /I/ do not find it difficult to spot them from the output of
"gcc -v -E empty.c". Other people's experiences may vary. Bart
apparently regularly needs to get the include paths from his own
compiler, that he wrote, which seems strange to me.
> And for symmetry?
Symmetry of what?
> I find
> options like:
>
> -print-search-dirs
> -print-multiarch
> ...
> -print-sysroot-headers-suffix
>
> but the last one apparently does not work in normal install (even
> for cross compilers), and the other seem to give no info about headers.
>
<https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html>
These options are about the way the compiler was configured when it was
built. The manual page is "primarily of interest to GCC developers".
It might look like these options are for showing include directory
paths, but they are not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <118h4o5$291rh$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #402178 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 17/09/2026 16:38, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2026 14:15, bart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I got a lot more output than that. Then I noticed you said 'amongst
>>>> other things'. So -v does not produce less output than --verbose!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. You might think it strange, but I only posted the relevant lines
>>> here. There were a total of 31 lines from that command - it was not
>>> difficult to spot the ones relevant to the include paths.
>>>
>>>> On my C compiler I used to have an option -paths which listed all the
>>>> include paths it would use.
>>>>
>>>> I'm surprised that gcc, amongst it 1000s of options, doesn't have a
>>>> dedicated one for this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've never needed to see the list of paths before - they are all
>>> entirely obvious and standard, and "just work". Why would a compiler
>>> need to add a specific option for something that is rarely required and
>>> where there is a simple and fairly obvious common option ("-v", or
>>> "--verbose") to get the information?
>>
>> For the benefit of configure scripts?
>
> Some people need to write configure scripts. I don't. I neither know
> nor care what people might want in such configure scripts, but I feel
> confident that if this was actually something that people needed to do
> on a regular basis, either such a flag would have been added to gcc, or
> someone would have published a simple recipe or script for getting the
> information out of gcc.
The '-print-...' options appeared because people did not want to
hardcode assumptions or do convolved tests. Having compiler print
info that it knows is much easier. Lack of such option for
include files means that there was no _pressing_ need, but not
that there is no need at all.
> What I wrote was that /I/ have never needed such a list of include
> paths. And /I/ do not find it difficult to spot them from the output of
> "gcc -v -E empty.c". Other people's experiences may vary. Bart
> apparently regularly needs to get the include paths from his own
> compiler, that he wrote, which seems strange to me.
>
>> And for symmetry?
>
> Symmetry of what?
Symmetry of options. There are options to print various important
info, but one piece, that is default include path is currently
missing.
>> I find
>> options like:
>>
>> -print-search-dirs
>> -print-multiarch
>> ...
>> -print-sysroot-headers-suffix
>>
>> but the last one apparently does not work in normal install (even
>> for cross compilers), and the other seem to give no info about headers.
>>
>
> <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html>
>
> These options are about the way the compiler was configured when it was
> built. The manual page is "primarily of interest to GCC developers".
>
> It might look like these options are for showing include directory
> paths, but they are not.
That is my point.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 20:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118hbc2$htbg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402180 |
On 17/09/2026 18:33, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Developer-Options.html> >> >> These options are about the way the compiler was configured when it was >> built. The manual page is "primarily of interest to GCC developers". >> >> It might look like these options are for showing include directory >> paths, but they are not. > > That is my point. > The options intended for use only by GCC developers are poorly named. Usually naming of that kind of thing is not a priority. What is unusual, as I see it, is that they are documented in the user-oriented reference manual, rather than the internals manual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118hicq$kvll$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402146 |
On 9/16/2026 5:49 PM, bart wrote: [...] Give this a go: https://vcpkg.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118hiat$kvll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402145 |
On 9/16/2026 4:59 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 16/09/2026 16:53, David Brown wrote: >>> On 16/09/2026 16:20, bart wrote: >>>> Another advantage is that the header is a single file that is easy >>>> to use, copy, bundle etc. You don't need - I options. >>> My test file contained a single line : >>> #include <SDL2/SDL.h> >>> and compiled with >>> gcc -c test.c >>> There are no -I options. >> >> Where is your SDL2 folder located relative to the current directory? > > On my system (Ubuntu 24.04), it's "/usr/include/SDL2". David's > system is probably similar. > >> Was there some installation process that put the headers in a place >> where gcc will look for it without being told? Does it involve using >> 'pkg-config'? > > Yes, installing the Ubuntu package "libsdl2-dev" created and > populated the /usr/include/SDL2 directory, among other things. > That's a typical approach for Unix-like systems. > > pkg-config does know about sdl2, but "#include <SDL2/SDL.h>" appears > to work without invoking pkg-config. There may be more to it than > that, but I don't use SDL so I haven't looked into it. > > I have no idea how you'd set it up on Windows, but ... Well, fwiw, vcpkg: https://vcpkg.io/en/ > >> Mine is in the current directory (that is, ./SDL3 is a folder that >> contains the headers). gcc doesn't work without '-I.' on either OS: > > Did you set that up manually? If you had two projects that use SDL, > would you have to create "./SDL3" folders in both of them? > > [...] >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 12:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118gfrq$5cmt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402144 |
On 17/09/2026 01:36, bart wrote: > On 16/09/2026 16:53, David Brown wrote: >> On 16/09/2026 16:20, bart wrote: > >>> Another advantage is that the header is a single file that is easy to >>> use, copy, bundle etc. You don't need - I options. >> >> My test file contained a single line : >> >> #include <SDL2/SDL.h> >> >> and compiled with >> >> gcc -c test.c >> >> There are no -I options. > > Where is your SDL2 folder located relative to the current directory? /usr/include/SDL2 > > Was there some installation process that put the headers in a place > where gcc will look for it without being told? Does it involve using > 'pkg-config'? "apt install libsdl2-dev", as I said. Linux distributions with other package managers will have a very similar method. > > Mine is in the current directory (that is, ./SDL3 is a folder that > contains the headers). gcc doesn't work without '-I.' on either OS: > > c:\sdl>wsl > root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/sdl# cat s.c > #include <SDL3/SDL.h> Do you not understand the difference between using <> and "" in #include directives? Roughly speaking (details are implementation-specific), using "SDL3/SDL.h" searches first the local directory and relative paths, and then moves on to system / toolchain include directories if that fails - using <SDL3/SDL.h> goes straight to the system / toolchain directories. So if you have SDL headers installed as part of the system libraries, the <> form is appropriate - it also ensures that you are getting the system library versions and not accidentally getting a local file of the same name. If you have the headers in your local directory (or in both places, but want the local version), use the "" form. > > root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/sdl# gcc -c s.c > s.c:1:10: fatal error: SDL3/SDL.h: No such file or directory > 1 | #include <SDL3/SDL.h> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ > compilation terminated. > > c:\sdl>gcc -c s.c > s.c:1:10: fatal error: SDL3/SDL.h: No such file or directory > 1 | #include <SDL3/SDL.h> > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~ > compilation terminated. > > >> >> Single header files are not particularly exciting for a library like >> this. > > Why not? stb_image works fine as a single header for example (which also > contains the implementation). There are even sites that list single- > header libraries. I told you why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 13:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <118gkus$9f26$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402158 |
On 17/09/2026 11:36, David Brown wrote: > On 17/09/2026 01:36, bart wrote: >> On 16/09/2026 16:53, David Brown wrote: >>> On 16/09/2026 16:20, bart wrote: >> >>>> Another advantage is that the header is a single file that is easy >>>> to use, copy, bundle etc. You don't need - I options. >>> >>> My test file contained a single line : >>> >>> #include <SDL2/SDL.h> >>> >>> and compiled with >>> >>> gcc -c test.c >>> >>> There are no -I options. >> >> Where is your SDL2 folder located relative to the current directory? > > /usr/include/SDL2 > >> >> Was there some installation process that put the headers in a place >> where gcc will look for it without being told? Does it involve using >> 'pkg-config'? > > "apt install libsdl2-dev", as I said. Linux distributions with other > package managers will have a very similar method. My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes clang), includes 3000 .h files. They can't all be for the standard library! And 1200 .a archive files. So the approach there seems to be bundle headers and binaries for every possible library. But apparently not big ones like SDL. So I guess, if I copied the SDL3 folder to the same location it keeps stdio.h, it would also work without "-I". But only for this compiler, and not ideal when multiple headers are not tidily contained within their own folder. >> >> Mine is in the current directory (that is, ./SDL3 is a folder that >> contains the headers). gcc doesn't work without '-I.' on either OS: >> >> c:\sdl>wsl >> root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/sdl# cat s.c >> #include <SDL3/SDL.h> > > Do you not understand the difference between using <> and "" in #include > directives? Roughly speaking (details are implementation-specific), Exactly, they are implementation-specific. Which can mean subtle differences in locating a file when already deep inside a nested header. My compiler actually treats <> and "" the same. That would normally be troublesome as a rogue "stdio.h" in the current path would override the system header. But my compiler's system headers are embedded, and it will look there first for /any/ input files. So that doesn't come up, unless I override that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 14:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118gno8$aa36$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402165 |
On 17/09/2026 14:03, bart wrote: > On 17/09/2026 11:36, David Brown wrote: >> On 17/09/2026 01:36, bart wrote: >>> On 16/09/2026 16:53, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2026 16:20, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> Another advantage is that the header is a single file that is easy >>>>> to use, copy, bundle etc. You don't need - I options. >>>> >>>> My test file contained a single line : >>>> >>>> #include <SDL2/SDL.h> >>>> >>>> and compiled with >>>> >>>> gcc -c test.c >>>> >>>> There are no -I options. >>> >>> Where is your SDL2 folder located relative to the current directory? >> >> /usr/include/SDL2 >> >>> >>> Was there some installation process that put the headers in a place >>> where gcc will look for it without being told? Does it involve using >>> 'pkg-config'? >> >> "apt install libsdl2-dev", as I said. Linux distributions with other >> package managers will have a very similar method. > > My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes clang), > includes 3000 .h files. They can't all be for the standard library! > As you well know, there is no such thing as a standard "gcc Windows" installation - there are multiple different packagings of gcc with different choices of libraries and other tools. I am not sure it is going to be very helpful if you say exactly which Windows gcc installation you have, but there can be huge variations between them. First off, you can expect that you have C++ support as well as C support - and C++ has far more standard headers than C. Many of these are named without ".h", but real-world C++ standard libraries implement them with countless ".h" files. Looking inside the directories for the standard ARM gcc cross-toolchain package for embedded devices, version 15.2, I see 1880 header files of which 1205 are in C++ specific directories. Then there are generally lots for extensions to the standard library - most C libraries have a fair bit more than the standard libraries. There are target-specific headers, processor-specific headers (for "intrinsic" functions), and often many headers that are included by several of the others to reduce duplication and maintenance. There will be lots of OS-specific or "system" headers (for Linux, Windows, whatever). > And 1200 .a archive files. So the approach there seems to be bundle > headers and binaries for every possible library. But apparently not big > ones like SDL. > Standard and additional libraries are often split into multiple parts. Traditionally, "libc.a" contains most functions, and "libm.a" contains the floating point libraries. But there can be more splits, and additional libraries for other parts - a toolchain installation often includes many other things than just the standards-defined library. And then for each set of static libraries, there can be a large number of builds optimised for different target variants, different choices of compiler flags (like optimisation, or debug support), and so on. My cross-compiler toolchain has 780 ".a" files, for variants of about a dozen different ARM cores, each with perhaps 4 choices of floating point hardware support. But a standard toolchain installation is not going to include SDL libraries and headers, unless it was for a platform that had that as a necessity. If SDL was considered worthy for inclusion by standard, there would be a thousand other "worthy" libraries to include too. > So I guess, if I copied the SDL3 folder to the same location it keeps > stdio.h, it would also work without "-I". > I guess so. But I would not do that unless it was controlled by some kind of package manager - keeping everything consistent and avoiding conflicts can be quite an effort. You also don't need any "-I" flags if you used the more appropriate (for your setup) use of #include "SDL3/SDL.h" rather than the <> system include form. It is also normal to have a common place for include files, like /usr/include and /usr/local/include. There is no standard for this in Windows, but you might find at least that different versions of the same gcc Windows packages look in common directories. > But only for this compiler, and not ideal when multiple headers are not > tidily contained within their own folder. > Fortunately most (IME) libraries that have multiple headers /do/ keep them tidily in their own folder. >>> >>> Mine is in the current directory (that is, ./SDL3 is a folder that >>> contains the headers). gcc doesn't work without '-I.' on either OS: >>> >>> c:\sdl>wsl >>> root@DESKTOP-11:/mnt/c/sdl# cat s.c >>> #include <SDL3/SDL.h> >> >> Do you not understand the difference between using <> and "" in >> #include directives? Roughly speaking (details are implementation- >> specific), > > Exactly, they are implementation-specific. Which can mean subtle > differences in locating a file when already deep inside a nested header. > It's not /that/ difficult - I explained it in a single sentence. And while it's "implementation-specific" according to the C standards, the same simple, basic system is used by virtually all C compilers, and virtually all C code. Use "" for application-specific headers, and <> for toolchain and system-installed headers. > My compiler actually treats <> and "" the same. That would normally be > troublesome as a rogue "stdio.h" in the current path would override the > system header. > Well, you can always complain to that compiler's development team, and ask them to follow the norms. > But my compiler's system headers are embedded, and it will look there > first for /any/ input files. So that doesn't come up, unless I override > that. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 14:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <118gq5l$bfrn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402170 |
On 17/09/2026 13:51, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/09/2026 14:03, bart wrote:
>> My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes
>> clang), includes 3000 .h files. They can't all be for the standard
>> library!
>>
>
> As you well know, there is no such thing as a standard "gcc Windows"
> installation - there are multiple different packagings of gcc with
> different choices of libraries and other tools. I am not sure it is
> going to be very helpful if you say exactly which Windows gcc
> installation you have, but there can be huge variations between them.
If interested it was from winlibs.com. (The site looks like something
from the 1990s but it has versions up 16.2.0.)
>>> Do you not understand the difference between using <> and "" in
>>> #include directives? Roughly speaking (details are implementation-
>>> specific),
>>
>> Exactly, they are implementation-specific. Which can mean subtle
>> differences in locating a file when already deep inside a nested header.
>>
>
> It's not /that/ difficult - I explained it in a single sentence. And
> while it's "implementation-specific" according to the C standards, the
> same simple, basic system is used by virtually all C compilers, and
> virtually all C code. Use "" for application-specific headers, and <>
> for toolchain and system-installed headers.
It's a bit more elaborate than that. Here are the inputs the algorithm
might work with when it tries to find a new header file:
* Whether "" or <> is used
* Whether the file-spec is absolute or relative
* The ordered list of locations that it looks for system headers
* The set of include paths given via -I or equivalent options (I
assume these are ordered too)
* The directory from where the compiler was invoked ('cwd')
* The directory (and possibly other locations relative to that) where
the compiler binary lives
* The path of the main .c source file
* The current stack of nested include file locations, including
that of the current include file
* (For mine at least) the set of embedded files within the compiler, and
any further options that can alter the behaviour
I'd like to know what you would consider difficult! (Apparently, nothing.)
The algorithm has to decide how to use this information. However what is
implied is that if it can't find the file in one location, it will try
somewhere else, provided an absolute path was not used.
I have problem with that: if header file is accidentally deleted or
renamed, it might find a header with the same name elsewhere, but it
will now be the wrong one, or the wrong version.
(For this reason, the compiler for my language will only ever look in
one place on disk for any file, even though the module scheme simplifies
the process immensely.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 15:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118hou2$mqr3$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402173 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 17/09/2026 13:51, David Brown wrote:
>> On 17/09/2026 14:03, bart wrote:
>>> My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes
>>> clang), includes 3000 .h files. They can't all be for the standard
>>> library!
>>>
>> As you well know, there is no such thing as a standard "gcc Windows"
>> installation - there are multiple different packagings of gcc with
>> different choices of libraries and other tools. I am not sure it is
>> going to be very helpful if you say exactly which Windows gcc
>> installation you have, but there can be huge variations between
>> them.
>
> If interested it was from winlibs.com. (The site looks like something
> from the 1990s but it has versions up 16.2.0.)
I just looked at winlibs.com. WinLibs is a "standalone build of
GCC and MinGW-w64 for Windows".
You implied that those 3000 .h files were part of your gcc
installation. In fact I'm nearly certain that most of them are
part of MinGW-w64, which winlibs.com describes as "a free and open
source C library for targetting Windows 32-bit and 64-bit platforms".
Why do you continue to pretend not to understand that?
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-17 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118hpal$mqr3$3@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402165 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes
> clang), includes 3000 .h files.
No it doesn't. As explained downthread, most of them are from
MinGW-w64, which is packaged along with gcc by WinLibs (winlibs.com).
> They can't all be for the standard
> library!
They aren't -- and gcc doesn't provide (most of) the standard library
anyway. The "gcc" package does provide some .h files, some for internal
use and some like stddef.h that are more closely tied to the compiler
than to the library implementation.
> And 1200 .a archive files. So the approach there seems to be bundle
> headers and binaries for every possible library. But apparently not
> big ones like SDL.
That's not "every possible library".
Obviously MinGW-w64 includes *some* libraries. Obviously it doesn't
include the SDL library. Obviously if you want to use SDL, you're
expected to install it separately.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 09:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118insp$10l19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402193 |
On 18/09/2026 00:24, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> My gcc Windows installation (I went back to 14.2 as it includes >> clang), includes 3000 .h files. > > No it doesn't. As explained downthread, most of them are from > MinGW-w64, which is packaged along with gcc by WinLibs (winlibs.com). > >> They can't all be for the standard >> library! > > They aren't -- and gcc doesn't provide (most of) the standard library > anyway. The "gcc" package does provide some .h files, some for internal > use and some like stddef.h that are more closely tied to the compiler > than to the library implementation. > While gcc does not provide a C standard library (as has been explained to Bart endlessly), the gcc team /do/ provide a C++ standard library. It is not part of the C compiler, but it is almost certainly also included in the "winlibs" package. And while the user-facing headers in the C++ standard library are mostly without extension, most of the internal headers are ".h" files. Thus a not insignificant part of those ".h" files he has were provided by gcc rather than third parties, but are not part of the C standard library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 02:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118iv25$13s42$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402207 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 18/09/2026 00:24, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> They aren't -- and gcc doesn't provide (most of) the standard library
>> anyway. The "gcc" package does provide some .h files, some for
>> internal use and some like stddef.h that are more closely tied to the
>> compiler than to the library implementation.
>
> While gcc does not provide a C standard library (as has been explained
> to Bart endlessly), the gcc team /do/ provide a C++ standard
> library. It is not part of the C compiler, but it is almost certainly
> also included in the "winlibs" package. And while the user-facing
> headers in the C++ standard library are mostly without extension, most
> of the internal headers are ".h" files. Thus a not insignificant part
> of those ".h" files he has were provided by gcc rather than third
> parties, but are not part of the C standard library.
Good point.
I've said a number of times that "gcc" is a compiler, not a full C
implementation. It's worth pointing out that the software package
called "gcc" (downloadable in source form from gcc.gnu.org) does
include some other software in addition to the compiler, including
a small part of the library implementation for C and a much larger
part of the library implementation for C++.
OS-specific installers can and often do break this up into multiple
installable packages. For example, on Ubuntu and related systems,
the GNU compilers for various languages (C, C++, Fortran, Cobol,
Ada, et al) are in separate packages, as are the headers and code.
I have oversimplified this in the past.
Having said all that, it is absolutely not the case that the bulk
of the C standard library implementation is part of "gcc", however
much a certain poster here pretends to believe that it is.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <118j25c$15nmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402213 |
On 18/09/2026 10:08, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
> I've said a number of times that "gcc" is a compiler, not a full C
> implementation. It's worth pointing out that the software package
> called "gcc" (downloadable in source form from gcc.gnu.org) does
> include some other software in addition to the compiler, including
> a small part of the library implementation for C and a much larger
> part of the library implementation for C++.
>
> OS-specific installers can and often do break this up into multiple
> installable packages. For example, on Ubuntu and related systems,
> the GNU compilers for various languages (C, C++, Fortran, Cobol,
> Ada, et al) are in separate packages, as are the headers and code.
>
> I have oversimplified this in the past.
>
> Having said all that, it is absolutely not the case that the bulk
> of the C standard library implementation is part of "gcc", however
> much a certain poster here pretends to believe that it is.
Yes, we all know that 'gcc' is different. That seems to be its thing.
Anyone who installs a C compiler for Windows expects to get everything
necessary to compile C programs that use the standard library, into an
executable.
They couldn't care less how that is done, or whether, technically, the
package they're using is a 'compiler', or 'compiler' plus other
components. Or who or what provides the C library.
If they choose 'gcc', then the picture is more complicated, but the end
result is the same: they can compile those same programs and it just works.
I've never understood what MingGW is about, and frankly don't care.
Wherever you get gcc from, it always comes with some big bunch of stuff.
But I /can/ tell you exactly how my own C implementation for Windows
works. It comprises these three files:
bcc.exe 328KB
windows.h 608KB
aa6.exe 116KB
bcc is the main compiler that can directly write EXE/DLL/OBJ/ASM, or it
can run programs directly as native code or by interpreting.
It incorporates the standard headers. windows.h is separate as it would
have made bcc.exe three times the size.
For the C library it uses Windows' msvcrt.dll, dynamically linked (700KB).
(This 'bcc' version only supports one C input file at a time, as it
shares a back-end with my other, whole-program compiler.
For multi-module C programs, bcc must generate ASM files which are
assembled by aa6.exe into EXE etc. But 99% of bcc invocations are for
single file programs.)
You're welcome to explain gcc in the same way. You don't need to list
/all/ the constituent files!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-18 03:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <118j2cl$13s42$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402218 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> But I /can/ tell you exactly how my own C implementation for Windows
> works.
But I don't care.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web