Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #104113 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 539 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-02-20 18:00 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 18:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 11:47 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 23:30 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-18 15:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 00:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-18 19:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:41 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 09:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:24 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 11:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:26 -0800
Getting yourself killfiled (Was: Is this valid C?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-19 21:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 20:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 14:48 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 09:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 09:14 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-20 12:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 23:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 00:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 01:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 11:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 14:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-19 15:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:55 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 10:05 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 07:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 16:23 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 08:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 12:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 12:29 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 13:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 13:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 15:16 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-21 09:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 21:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 10:09 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:43 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 12:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 16:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 09:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 11:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 11:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 23:13 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 23:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:35 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 01:10 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 16:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:49 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 12:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 01:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 15:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 07:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 09:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 16:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 22:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 15:31 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 18:35 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 22:39 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 10:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-23 19:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 21:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 19:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 12:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:11 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 15:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:10 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 13:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 22:00 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 01:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 17:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 11:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:39 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:07 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 19:19 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 17:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 00:56 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 01:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:18 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 14:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 17:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 09:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-24 17:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:40 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:52 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 09:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 17:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-21 10:56 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 05:18 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 11:26 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 13:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 14:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 04:25 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-01 03:46 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 06:30 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 16:31 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 10:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 12:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 12:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2017-03-02 19:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-02 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 04:19 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 06:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 15:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-03 04:20 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 08:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-02 19:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:54 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 16:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 18:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 07:52 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 13:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 12:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:28 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:14 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 05:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 07:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 07:07 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 08:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:11 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 09:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 10:27 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-23 20:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-26 13:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 11:56 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 14:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 09:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 15:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 10:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 16:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 17:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 05:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 13:39 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 17:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 10:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 08:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 14:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 12:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 20:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 16:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 15:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 16:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 17:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 14:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 14:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 09:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 15:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 21:26 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 10:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-26 17:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2017-02-26 12:56 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 13:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:55 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 22:01 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 08:51 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 13:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 15:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 18:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:55 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-02 15:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 11:26 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 12:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:48 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:47 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 13:12 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 15:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 07:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 12:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-03 21:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 21:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:24 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 09:01 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:26 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:38 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 20:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:15 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-28 23:08 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-28 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 19:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-27 17:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 17:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-27 19:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 20:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2017-02-27 16:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 19:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 12:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 18:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:38 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 06:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 16:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 11:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 19:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 23:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 12:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-26 21:54 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 16:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 20:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:34 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-27 17:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 23:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 09:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 20:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:03 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 19:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:05 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 09:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:07 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 20:52 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:26 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 10:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2017-03-01 03:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 03:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 18:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 02:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:58 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 21:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-26 19:24 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:44 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 04:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:57 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:27 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:30 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-02 07:35 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 16:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 16:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 11:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 22:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 11:49 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 15:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 15:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-25 07:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 15:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800
Page 5 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 27 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8l7nl$ng7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104411 |
On 22/02/2017 22:13, David Brown wrote: > On 22/02/17 22:45, BartC wrote: > >> If an open source project is advertised as 'C source' then building >> should need nothing more than a C compiler and a linker. > > Please provide a reference for where gcc is advertised as "C source". Oh, what's it written in then? >> My projects are /distributed/ as single file C sources, but that is for >> convenience and minimal hassle. The actual sources might be a couple of >> dozen modules, and are not even in C. I expend some effort to make >> building a project for distribution much simpler than it is for >> development; no else seems that bothered > > You do realise that a key aspect of free and open source software is > that they are provided as /source/ ? > The choice of formats for > distribution of programs such as gcc is to give the user maximum ability > to modify the source I doubt that very much. I use C source because of the problems of distributing programs as binaries - people don't like them, and they are not portable. Others download source code because they can't get binaries. In the case of gcc, doesn't it provide enough options that people have to modify and build sources? What proportion of people who use gcc would even have a clue how to go about modifying anything about it? (This is a 100,000-file, 600MB project.) - /not/ to give them minimum installation effort. > Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get > install" or similar tools for their system. How do you go about getting even a trivial C program in a form that people can download onto *any* Linux system just by using apt-get? Because I wouldn't have a clue. C source, as kind of single-file repository, is easy for me and not that hard for people who like Linux as they will know there way around. If they can download, compile and run a hello-world program, then they can do the same with one of my applications. > (And yes, it is totally true that a great many people involved in such > software spend very little time or effort trying to make life easier for > users of closed-source proprietary operating systems.) On my Raspberry Pi, gcc runs at about 500 lines per second - if you turn off optimising. Otherwise it's nearer 100 lines per second. My projects take minutes to compile. I can't find a ready-to-run Tiny C distribution; you have to start with source (AND configure et al), and hack it about to make it work (for ARM 32-bit). My project will almost certainly compile many times faster than gcc (however it will need an ARM code-generator). There is a place for a small, informal, very easy to compile, very simple and very nippy (by Pi standards) C compiler that runs directly on such a device without needing to mess around with configure, makefile and the rest. Or need to hack around the source code. So I am making some efforts to simplify things, even if it's a token effort as no one is seriously going to use my product, but it will show what can be possible. I find it disgraceful that with a 0.7GHz 0.5GB RAM, 32-bit processor, you are obliged to turn to a desktop PC just to compile programs (I think that's what you suggested in the past). > (And yes, it is totally true that a great many people involved in such > software spend very little time or effort trying to make life easier for users of closed-source proprietary operating systems.) Of course, a lot less effort would be needed if these applications were structured in a simple manner in the first place! But all I am learning about Linux development methods is that there is no incentive to keep things small and simple. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 10:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8ma9u$5dt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104417 |
On 23/02/17 00:45, BartC wrote: > On 22/02/2017 22:13, David Brown wrote: >> On 22/02/17 22:45, BartC wrote: >> >>> If an open source project is advertised as 'C source' then building >>> should need nothing more than a C compiler and a linker. >> >> Please provide a reference for where gcc is advertised as "C source". > > Oh, what's it written in then? I did a quick analysis of the file endings of the files in gcc 4.9 (since I have that source handy). Of the approximately 130K files in the tree, I am seeing 25K ".c" files, 15K files without extensions, 11K ".h" files, 10K ".C" files (that's C++), 8K ".class" files (Java), 6.6K ".cc" files (C++), 6K ".java" files, 4K ".f90" (Fortran), 2K ".go", 2K ".ada", and so on. There are also lots of m4 macro files, some assembly files, makefiles, configuration files, automatic test generator files, shell scripts, documentation files in various formats, xml files, awk files, bison/yacc files, python files, etc. So, the main part of gcc is in C - but there is a /huge/ amount more involved, even for just the "C compiler" part. And within gcc, there are many languages, libraries, test suites, etc., with a wide variety of source types. Back to you - where do you see a reference that gcc is advertised as "C source" - or is it just something you made up? > >>> My projects are /distributed/ as single file C sources, but that is for >>> convenience and minimal hassle. The actual sources might be a couple of >>> dozen modules, and are not even in C. I expend some effort to make >>> building a project for distribution much simpler than it is for >>> development; no else seems that bothered >> >> You do realise that a key aspect of free and open source software is >> that they are provided as /source/ ? >> The choice of formats for >> distribution of programs such as gcc is to give the user maximum ability >> to modify the source > > I doubt that very much. I use C source because of the problems of > distributing programs as binaries - people don't like them, and they are > not portable. What exactly do you "doubt very much" ? Do you doubt that the gcc folks pick their formats based on making the source easy for people to modify? If so, then I suggest you read a bit about GNU and Free Software. I can understand the attractiveness of a single C file as a distribution format. But it would be a totally useless format for gcc, or even the simplest free or open source program, because it is a generated output file. It is effectively a portable binary format. (You make your own choices about how you want to distribute or license your own code - I am in no way suggesting there is something wrong about providing software by bundling everything into a single C file. I am merely saying that is not the way gcc or other FOSS can do it.) > > Others download source code because they can't get binaries. > > In the case of gcc, doesn't it provide enough options that people have > to modify and build sources? What proportion of people who use gcc would > even have a clue how to go about modifying anything about it? (This is a > 100,000-file, 600MB project.) You seem to have missed the point that most gcc users don't built it from source - they get it ready-made. Either they get it from the Linux/BSD distribution, or they get a binary installation for Windows (which most users handle without problems). And you seem to have missed the point of /free/ software and /open source/ development. It really doesn't matter if only one in a million users wants to modify the source code - /everyone/ has the right to do so, and that means the source code distribution is key. > > - /not/ to give them minimum installation effort. >> Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get >> install" or similar tools for their system. > > How do you go about getting even a trivial C program in a form that > people can download onto *any* Linux system just by using apt-get? > Because I wouldn't have a clue. That's fine - if you don't plan on distributing files to Debian-like systems in this format, there is no need to learn. It's not particularly /hard/ to make .deb files, or an apt compatible repository, but it takes a bit of learning and a bit of setup, and you need the right tools. In summary, however, you compile your program, and package it along with a file of meta-data, lists of libraries you need, scripts for pre-install or post-install (if needed), and put the whole thing into a .deb archive. If you want to make a source deb as well, you include the source (the /real/ source, not a generated C file) and build scripts. > > C source, as kind of single-file repository, is easy for me and not that > hard for people who like Linux as they will know there way around. > > If they can download, compile and run a hello-world program, then they > can do the same with one of my applications. Unless your applications are little more than hello world programs, they will be unable to make non-trivial modifications. That may be fine for your programs - it is not fine for FOSS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 01:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20170223011051.bcbf0f8afcb2e7bb1efec92c@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104411 |
On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:13:08 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get > install" or similar tools for their system. Most people don't use a Debian based distribution... or even a Linux system. Actually the majority of individuals use a Windows system and don't even care about libre softwares. Lambda users only need the best affordable tool even if it leads them to piracy by the lack of law enforcement on IP. It is amazing how many libre softwares promoters can be enclosed into their own libre bubble...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 00:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8lald$v5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104419 |
On 23/02/2017 00:10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:13:08 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get >> install" or similar tools for their system. > > Most people don't use a Debian based distribution... or even a Linux system. > > Actually the majority of individuals use a Windows system and don't even care > about libre softwares. Lambda users only need the best affordable tool even if > it leads them to piracy by the lack of law enforcement on IP. > > It is amazing how many libre softwares promoters can be enclosed into their own > libre bubble... Consumer equipment uses Windows or Android or some Apple OS. While the last two might technically have some Unix- or Linux-like core, they are generally aren't used as such. In fact I would find it difficult to know where to buy a computer (ie. a consumer machine with physical keyboard) designed to run primarily Linux. When I was last writing apps (in the 90s), practically every client used a Windows machine. Maybe one in a thousand inquired about a Linux version, but it wasn't worth our while (although some reported good results with Windows emulation on Macs). (BTW I had no problems whatsoever in writing applications for Windows, none that would be magically solved by using Linux, but would have been impractical anyway as no one used Linux.) Maybe there is more demand for Linux now with people used to it from academia and such; I don't see that as any sort of threat. But a lot of Linux people do seem to want to be rude about Windows and its capabilities when it comes to development, mainly due to its not being Linux. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-22 16:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3d15aad-2a9f-4872-be57-4da9b57e09b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104422 |
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 12:35:49 AM UTC, Bart wrote: > > Maybe there is more demand for Linux now with people used to it from > academia and such; I don't see that as any sort of threat. But a lot of > Linux people do seem to want to be rude about Windows and its > capabilities when it comes to development, mainly due to its not being > Linux. > Linux is common in academia, for high end computing, and for embedded development. So the typical Linux user has quite a powerful machine, not used for consumer applications but for something unfamiliar to the vast majority of users. This often creates a sense of superiority.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 11:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8mc4f$bb7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104422 |
On 23/02/17 01:35, BartC wrote: > On 23/02/2017 00:10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:13:08 +0100 >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> >>> Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get >>> install" or similar tools for their system. >> >> Most people don't use a Debian based distribution... or even a Linux >> system. >> >> Actually the majority of individuals use a Windows system and don't >> even care >> about libre softwares. Lambda users only need the best affordable tool >> even if >> it leads them to piracy by the lack of law enforcement on IP. >> >> It is amazing how many libre softwares promoters can be enclosed into >> their own >> libre bubble... > > Consumer equipment uses Windows or Android or some Apple OS. While the > last two might technically have some Unix- or Linux-like core, they are > generally aren't used as such. > A proportion of programmers use Apple machines for serious development - with its BSD core (BSD counts as *nix) it can give you most of the power of a Linux system, and Apple's laptop hardware is very nice. (Linus Torvalds used to use an Apple laptop, with Linux installed.) > In fact I would find it difficult to know where to buy a computer (ie. a > consumer machine with physical keyboard) designed to run primarily Linux. Mostly you just buy a computer and install Linux on it. There are some suppliers that pre-install Linux, but the typical Linux user installs it himself/herself. You typically pay for a copy of Windows whether you want it or not - I don't like that, but rarely find it worth the effort trying to avoid. (The exception is for server systems and big computers, where you usually choose the OS you want and Linux is much more common.) > > When I was last writing apps (in the 90s), practically every client used When I were a lad, we used punch cards / re-arranged valve boards / turned the handles on our difference engines... The 90's are not relevant here. > a Windows machine. Maybe one in a thousand inquired about a Linux > version, but it wasn't worth our while (although some reported good > results with Windows emulation on Macs). > > (BTW I had no problems whatsoever in writing applications for Windows, > none that would be magically solved by using Linux, but would have been > impractical anyway as no one used Linux.) > > Maybe there is more demand for Linux now with people used to it from > academia and such; I don't see that as any sort of threat. But a lot of > Linux people do seem to want to be rude about Windows and its > capabilities when it comes to development, mainly due to its not being > Linux. > There is a lot more demand for Linux now, and it is used in a wide variety of situations - but it is certainly not popular amongst the masses who primarly want browser/games/ms office, and buy whatever the salesman sells them. It is also not popular in shops or for manufacturers - it is a lot harder to make a profit when the software is free and customers don't need to pay for anti-virus updates. I can't speak for other "Linux people", but personally I am happy to be blunt in expressing opinions about good and bad aspects of systems. I use both Linux /and/ Windows - two computers side by side. I often have clear views about which tasks work better on one system, and which work better on the other. And Linux is a far better platform for the kind of development work I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 11:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8mflh$m7o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104471 |
On 23/02/2017 10:06, David Brown wrote: > On 23/02/17 01:35, BartC wrote: >> When I was last writing apps (in the 90s), practically every client used > > When I were a lad, we used punch cards / re-arranged valve boards / > turned the handles on our difference engines... > > The 90's are not relevant here. In the nineties, we had desktop PCs, laptops, Apple Macs, Windows, Linux, whatever-OS-Macs-used, C, gcc, Python, internet, email, 'executable files', 'source code', compilers, interpreters, graphics displays, pointing devices, ... It really isn't much different, not from my perspective. There are a few more platforms that I have no interest in. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 10:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8mb4c$85u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104419 |
On 23/02/17 01:10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:13:08 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get >> install" or similar tools for their system. > > Most people don't use a Debian based distribution... or even a Linux system. > > Actually the majority of individuals use a Windows system and don't even care > about libre softwares. Lambda users only need the best affordable tool even if > it leads them to piracy by the lack of law enforcement on IP. > > It is amazing how many libre softwares promoters can be enclosed into their own > libre bubble... > gcc comes precisely from the world of free and open source - so it is natural to talk about it there. And in the days of gcc 0.9, the compiler was only for *nix systems. These days, the majority of "computer users" are likely to be using an Android pad or telephone, or perhaps some sort of i-thingy. For desktops, most run Windows rather than Linux or other OS - but the great majority of these people do not do any sort of programming. And the great majority of people who /do/ program on Windows, do not program in C (especially when you exclude those who program in a mostly C subset of C++ with MSVC). For /C/ programming, you will find a far higher percentage of Linux users. I have no statistics, but I would not be at all surprised to find that more C programmers use Linux than Windows as their main development platform. Back to my original statement - it included "or similar tools for their system". The Windows equivalent of "apt-get install" is to google for "installing gcc on windows" and following a link to a appropriate websites, youtube videos, tutorials, etc. Depending on your needs you might get something like Code::Blocks IDE bundled with gcc, or msys2/mingw-64 with gcc and a generous selection of standard *nix utilities, or some other pre-built binary of gcc. For those doing embedded development with gcc, they will usually start at the microcontroller manufacturer's website and follow the links or recommendations - downloading free or paid-for binary packages that typically include Eclipse, cross-target gcc, libraries, debuggers, etc. These are all pre-built binaries. Building gcc from source is for enthusiasts only - it is not something that "normal" people ever do, even amongst C programmers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 12:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8mjqh$469$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104470 |
On 23/02/2017 09:49, David Brown wrote: > On 23/02/17 01:10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > ... > most run Windows rather than Linux or other OS - but the great > majority of these people do not do any sort of programming. And the > great majority of people who /do/ program on Windows, do not program in > C (especially when you exclude those who program in a mostly C subset of > C++ with MSVC). That's funny because if I install GHC on Windows, then 300MB of it is taken up with a gcc installation. Install Seed7 on Windows, there's gcc bundled. The Arduino toolkit on Windows has gcc bundled. Freebasic, no gcc.exe, but a rather large number of files that look suspiciously like the ones that come with gcc (as.exe, ld.exe, lib*.a etc). Freepascal, it has gcc bundled. Rust, it has gcc bundled. So not only can you not get away from C on Windows, no matter what language you're using, but it's hard to get away from gcc too! -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 17:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o8n2k2$pu5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104486 |
On 23/02/17 13:18, BartC wrote: > On 23/02/2017 09:49, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/02/17 01:10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > >> ... >> most run Windows rather than Linux or other OS - but the great >> majority of these people do not do any sort of programming. And the >> great majority of people who /do/ program on Windows, do not program in >> C (especially when you exclude those who program in a mostly C subset of >> C++ with MSVC). > > That's funny because if I install GHC on Windows, then 300MB of it is > taken up with a gcc installation. > > Install Seed7 on Windows, there's gcc bundled. I don't know that one. > > The Arduino toolkit on Windows has gcc bundled. Arduino is a toolkit for programming AVR microcontrollers in C and C++. It's not hugely surprising that it comes with the standard C and C++ compiler for the microcontroller, as built and supplied by the AVR manufacturer Atmel - the AVR port of gcc. If you want to get away from C programming on Windows, perhaps downloading a C/C++ programming toolkit is not the best way to start. > > Freebasic, no gcc.exe, but a rather large number of files that look > suspiciously like the ones that come with gcc (as.exe, ld.exe, lib*.a etc). > How many dozens of times has this been explained to you? I guess there is little point in going through it again - but here goes. "as" and "ld" are part of the binutils suite - they are an assembler and a linker. A C compiler needs an assembler and a linker to produce an executable - gcc is usually used with those from binutils, but can be used with other assemblers and linkers. Any other software that needs an assembler or linker can also use binutils - such as, for example, the Freebasic compiler. It is not related to gcc in any way. > Freepascal, it has gcc bundled. I don't know the details, but my understanding is that the Free Pascal compiler is an independent program. It generates assembly, which needs to be assembled and linked - guess what tools are commonly used for that? I'll give you a clue - it is /not/ gcc. > > Rust, it has gcc bundled. The original rust compiler was written in ocaml, which is not gcc related. The current compiler is written in rust, and it uses llvm as the backend. (Note that llvm is not C either - C is just one choice of front-end language.) So it does not have gcc bundled, or have (AFIAK) any connection whatsoever with gcc. > > So not only can you not get away from C on Windows, no matter what > language you're using, but it's hard to get away from gcc too! > Of all your examples, the only one that is connected with C /or/ gcc in any way is one that is explicitly a gcc C and C++ compiler for a microcontroller!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87o9xsn3ok.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #104419 |
GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:13:08 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> Most people get their minimum installation effort using "apt-get >> install" or similar tools for their system. > > Most people don't use a Debian based distribution... or even a Linux > system. Most users of gcc do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87bmtt7jx5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #104403 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 22/02/2017 20:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> <snip> >>> I'll have another go. However, if the process depends on 'Make sure >>> the Bison parser generator is installed', then I'm screwed >>> anyway. (I've no idea how to do that, and I expect it I will have its >>> own configure and makefile issues.) >> >> sudo apt-get install bison? >> >>> THIS is why I'm keen to show how this stuff can be done: One .c >>> file. That is it. >> >> A single-file C compiler is certainly possible. I don't think you have >> to show it *can* be done. The more interesting question is whether it >> *should* be done and what, if any, are the costs and limits that that >> style imposes. > >> You appear to have a particular set of circumstances that make this >> solution desirable but I'm not sure what they are but I don't seem to >> share them. > > Yes, the set of circumstances is not working on Linux or Unix where > you get your hand held: everything is provided, all the dependencies > are present, all the scripts work, everything is just right. And if > something is missing, then the hard work has already been done as you > just have to do 'apt-get'. > > I don't have all that as I work on Windows, and I don't want it nor > believe things needs to be done that way. On Linux all these tools (I > believe 'configure' files are generated by a tool, and apparently it > is completely unrestrained in what junk it can create) are there so > people use them even when unnecessary. > > Then insist anyone building even the simplest project anywhere else > has to source the same set of tools and dependencies, which may or may > not work. > > If an open source project is advertised as 'C source' then building > should need nothing more than a C compiler and a linker. > > But apparently even that can't be kept simple: my gcc is 750MB; when I > downloaded GHC Haskell, it came with a bundled C compiler, and > wouldn't you know it had to be gcc! 300MB of it (although lost in the > 2GB GHC). > > I strongly think that things can be much smaller and simpler (and yes > I know much of that gcc are bundled libraries and stuff, but I > wouldn't know how much of it constitutes a basic C system). > > My projects are /distributed/ as single file C sources, but that is > for convenience and minimal hassle. The actual sources might be a > couple of dozen modules, and are not even in C. I expend some effort > to make building a project for distribution much simpler than it is > for development; no else seems that bothered I'm getting lost about what your complaint really is. You appear to have found a satisfactory solution for your needs but that's not enough. Are you complaining that other people are happy with an alternative model? Or would you like everyone else to do it your way when they don't seem to have a problem that needs solving, and when you won't even contemplate the costs or disadvantages of your model? Sometimes it sounds like you are annoyed that the authors of some pretty fantastic software (like GHC) have not taken time out from what you acknowledge above is a convenient development environment to package it up in the way you want. Why should they? GHC is intended to be a test-bed for new ideas in compiling function languages (and in the language itself). It's great that it can be run on Windows, isn't it? Making it minimal (or even small) or a single file source must be way down the list of priorities. >> <snip> >>> Just to remind ourselves of the task, it is to compile a few dozen .c >>> and .h files into an application. Not to recreate the entire Linux OS >>> under Windows. >> >> It's to try to get a highly idiosyncratic bit of old (pre-standard) C >> compiled. > > I didn't know what is was like. A C compiler reads one text file and > outputs another, or perhaps a binary file. > > It's the perfect example of a portable application that needs only a > file API and little else. If should not care what system it runs > under. Where would the authors have gone to find that file API? What, in early 1987, could be assumed of a C implementation? strdup? alloca? memset? bzero? Maybe the authors should have just written all those from scratch because 30 years later someone on Usenet would complain that a Unix compiler used a Unix C library? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 11:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8mheo$s3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104426 |
On 23/02/2017 01:52, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 22/02/2017 20:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> You appear to have a particular set of circumstances that make this >>> solution desirable but I'm not sure what they are but I don't seem to >>> share them. >> >> Yes, the set of circumstances is not working on Linux or Unix ... > I'm getting lost about what your complaint really is. You appear to > have found a satisfactory solution for your needs but that's not enough. > Are you complaining that other people are happy with an alternative > model? Or would you like everyone else to do it your way when they don't > seem to have a problem that needs solving, and when you won't even > contemplate the costs or disadvantages of your model? > > Sometimes it sounds like you are annoyed that the authors of some pretty > fantastic software (like GHC) have not taken time out from what you > acknowledge above is a convenient development environment to package it > up in the way you want. Why should they? GHC is intended to be a > test-bed for new ideas in compiling function languages (and in the > language itself). I don't like the fact that, when some language needs to have a bundled C compiler, it chooses the huge, sprawling gcc. (The other day I was puzzled because every time I tried to hide 'gcc.exe', typing gcc still worked. It turned out I had half a dozen copies in various applications! Surely someone can have a perfectly reasonable C compiler in only 1MB or so? How did they manage in the past on something like a pdp11? (I've just looked inside my Arduino directory. Half of it, some 4000 files, seems to be not only gcc-related stuff, but to have a fairly complete set of Linux utilities in there, including bison! What on earth is Bison doing in a set of tools used for coding a tiny microprocessor? They've obviously been very lazy and just dragged in a whole bunch of irrelevant garbage. I had wondered why the set of tools for coding a 32KB device needed to be 250MB.) > It's great that it can be run on Windows, isn't it? > Making it minimal (or even small) or a single file source must be way > down the list of priorities. It would be great, except that for all its 2000MB installation, it didn't actually work. (But now I would just run it on-line if I only wanted to try something out. Eg. http://rextester.com/l/haskell_online_compiler) Disregarding the problems I was having (I assume it was supposed to work), the product would have been much better if time had been spent making it smaller, more compact and much tidier. Does /any/ language implementation need to be 2000MB? (I checked, and it wasn't due to a 30-minute tutorial video being included; it was just loads and loads of assorted files. It's like taking all the movie footage shot by the main and assistant directors, and splicing it into one 90-hour film marathon instead of editing it properly.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87r32p54e2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #104485 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 23/02/2017 01:52, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 22/02/2017 20:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>> You appear to have a particular set of circumstances that make this >>>> solution desirable but I'm not sure what they are but I don't seem to >>>> share them. >>> >>> Yes, the set of circumstances is not working on Linux or Unix ... > >> I'm getting lost about what your complaint really is. You appear to >> have found a satisfactory solution for your needs but that's not enough. >> Are you complaining that other people are happy with an alternative >> model? Or would you like everyone else to do it your way when they don't >> seem to have a problem that needs solving, and when you won't even >> contemplate the costs or disadvantages of your model? >> >> Sometimes it sounds like you are annoyed that the authors of some pretty >> fantastic software (like GHC) have not taken time out from what you >> acknowledge above is a convenient development environment to package it >> up in the way you want. Why should they? GHC is intended to be a >> test-bed for new ideas in compiling function languages (and in the >> language itself). > > I don't like the fact that, when some language needs to have a bundled > C compiler, it chooses the huge, sprawling gcc. The GHC people chose, quite reasonably, to use the best compiler available on the development platform. Because Windows seems not to have a package management system, the compiler has to be bundled (I am relying on your reports for this conclusion). But isn't that what you are suggesting? You would bundle a copy of everything you need for your software, but it would all be in one file somehow. How much effort should the team put in to help you out? It might take a lot of effort to package it up with another C compiler, always assuming that the technical and licensing issues can be sorted out. And how simple a compiler should they be prepared to accommodate in order to keep you happy? <snip> > (I've just looked inside my Arduino directory. Half of it, some 4000 > files, seems to be not only gcc-related stuff, but to have a fairly > complete set of Linux utilities in there, including bison! What on > earth is Bison doing in a set of tools used for coding a tiny > microprocessor? They've obviously been very lazy and just dragged in a > whole bunch of irrelevant garbage. I don't know. I image it's part of Cygwin. I find it interesting that you call it laziness. How much effort should they have put in to bundle just the right amount of software for you? And how would the Arduino tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than criticism? <snip> >> It's great that it can be run on Windows, isn't it? >> Making it minimal (or even small) or a single file source must be way >> down the list of priorities. > > It would be great, except that for all its 2000MB installation, it > didn't actually work. Do you ever think it might be you? I get the feeling lots of people run Haskell on Windows. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <963e1718-0ddd-48a0-8218-8da377a1e788@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104491 |
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:11:10 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't know. I image it's part of Cygwin. I find it interesting that > you call it laziness. How much effort should they have put in to bundle > just the right amount of software for you? And how would the Arduino > tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than > criticism? > Disk space is essentially free. So developers like gcc consume enormous amounts of it. But whilst the cost of the storage medium is, for me and most desktop users, not a consideration, there are other costs. For example, most people have a a few megabytes of high value data, e.g. C source code they themselves have personally written, drafts of a novel or thesis, photographs of their wedding or of a UFO they once saw, etc. If that is mixed in with half a gigabyte of gcc installation gubbiins, the high value data can get lost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 16:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8n3mj$tbc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104493 |
On 23/02/17 15:36, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:11:10 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> I don't know. I image it's part of Cygwin. I find it interesting that >> you call it laziness. How much effort should they have put in to bundle >> just the right amount of software for you? And how would the Arduino >> tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than >> criticism? >> > Disk space is essentially free. So developers like gcc consume enormous > amounts of it. > But whilst the cost of the storage medium is, for me and most desktop users, > not a consideration, there are other costs. For example, most people have a > a few megabytes of high value data, e.g. C source code they themselves have > personally written, drafts of a novel or thesis, photographs of their wedding > or of a UFO they once saw, etc. If that is mixed in with half a gigabyte of > gcc installation gubbiins, the high value data can get lost. Yes, that can be a big problem. If ONLY there were some way to keep stuff separate --- I don't know what, exactly, but maybe some kind of hierarchical method of organising data, such as a, well, maybe a "directory" of files that can contain "subdirectories" in a sort of tree thing. But I don't suppose it'll ever catch on. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 09:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <65c3e6b7-31b6-4aab-824e-be96961219b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #104504 |
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 4:49:28 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/02/17 15:36, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:11:10 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> > >> I don't know. I image it's part of Cygwin. I find it interesting that > >> you call it laziness. How much effort should they have put in to bundle > >> just the right amount of software for you? And how would the Arduino > >> tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than > >> criticism? > >> > > Disk space is essentially free. So developers like gcc consume enormous > > amounts of it. > > But whilst the cost of the storage medium is, for me and most desktop users, > > not a consideration, there are other costs. For example, most people have a > > a few megabytes of high value data, e.g. C source code they themselves have > > personally written, drafts of a novel or thesis, photographs of their wedding > > or of a UFO they once saw, etc. If that is mixed in with half a gigabyte of > > gcc installation gubbiins, the high value data can get lost. > > Yes, that can be a big problem. If ONLY there were some way to keep > stuff separate --- I don't know what, exactly, but maybe some kind of > hierarchical method of organising data, such as a, well, maybe a > "directory" of files that can contain "subdirectories" in a sort of tree > thing. > > But I don't suppose it'll ever catch on. > The snag is that there's no sense of scale. A big folder should contain more items than a little one. Maybe size could represent byte count and the number of stripes the file count.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8n4tf$2gj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104506 |
On 23/02/17 17:04, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 4:49:28 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 23/02/17 15:36, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 3:11:10 PM UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't know. I image it's part of Cygwin. I find it interesting that >>>> you call it laziness. How much effort should they have put in to bundle >>>> just the right amount of software for you? And how would the Arduino >>>> tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than >>>> criticism? >>>> >>> Disk space is essentially free. So developers like gcc consume enormous >>> amounts of it. >>> But whilst the cost of the storage medium is, for me and most desktop users, >>> not a consideration, there are other costs. For example, most people have a >>> a few megabytes of high value data, e.g. C source code they themselves have >>> personally written, drafts of a novel or thesis, photographs of their wedding >>> or of a UFO they once saw, etc. If that is mixed in with half a gigabyte of >>> gcc installation gubbiins, the high value data can get lost. >> >> Yes, that can be a big problem. If ONLY there were some way to keep >> stuff separate --- I don't know what, exactly, but maybe some kind of >> hierarchical method of organising data, such as a, well, maybe a >> "directory" of files that can contain "subdirectories" in a sort of tree >> thing. >> >> But I don't suppose it'll ever catch on. >> > The snag is that there's no sense of scale. A big folder should contain more items > than a little one. Maybe size could represent byte count and the number of stripes > the file count. Malcolm, I congratulate you. You really are beyond parody. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8n1kr$m4p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104491 |
On 23/02/2017 15:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> I don't like the fact that, when some language needs to have a bundled >> C compiler, it chooses the huge, sprawling gcc. > > The GHC people chose, quite reasonably, to use the best compiler > available on the development platform. Because Windows seems not to > have a package management system, the compiler has to be bundled (I am > relying on your reports for this conclusion). But isn't that what you > are suggesting? You would bundle a copy of everything you need for your > software, but it would all be in one file somehow. Well, there's the size of thing, and the fact that it's a big, ugly, untidy mess. Otherwise it's perfect! I've criticised clang before, but one nice thing about it is that the whole thing is presented as a single executable file. (It might be big at 50MB, and it might be sans headers and other essential tools, but that aspect at least they're getting right. If you need to quickly bundle it with something else, then you know you can just grab that file and that's it.) > How much effort should the team put in to help you out? It might take a > lot of effort to package it up with another C compiler, always assuming > that the technical and licensing issues can be sorted out. And how > simple a compiler should they be prepared to accommodate in order to > keep you happy? The problem is that there seems to be nobody whose job it is to keep tabs on these things. Nobody keeping checks on the tools that generate configure scripts. The script is 100 times the size of the actual project? No problem! 10000 times the size? Just stipulate a more powerful machine with multiple cores! > And how would the Arduino > tools people know what tools you will accept with thanks rather than > criticism? Getting a program from source code on a PC into the device requires 5 steps, usually hidden behind a GUI. For my own satisfaction I would have liked my own control over those steps. The first step was easy to replace. The next was invoking g++ for AVR. The next two invoked the same tool twice with different options. The tool size is 800KB. The last uses a 500KB tool and sends the program to the device. Now, 800KB and 500KB are quite hefty programs; they would have needed most of the resources of an ICL mainframe I once used, yet they are used here just to send a few dozen bytes of code to a microprocessor. I used to do exactly this, and it was a few lines of code. So what's going on here? Something clearly more complicated than is needed (except perhaps dealing with USB). These are supposed to be open source projects, which I dread looking into if they are themselves laden with yet more configures, makefiles and Linux dependencies. These things are just self-profligating! Anyway, part of the appeal of creating my own tools is to be able to whizz through such sources, assuming they are in C, giving me an insight not available with an ordinary compiler. As I can turn on any kinds of reporting I like. >> It would be great, except that for all its 2000MB installation, it >> didn't actually work. > > Do you ever think it might be you? I get the feeling lots of people run > Haskell on Windows. There was some problem with it finding its standard libraries. The project was supposed to install itself and set up everything needed; I'm not sure that I could even have done anything to break it. (I did have to install on D: rather than C: due to lack of space on the latter. Maybe there was an assumption that it would be installed on C:, and maybe most people do install in C: so wouldn't encounter the problem. But that's just a guess.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-23 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8n3qq$tbc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104491 |
On 23/02/17 15:11, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> >> >> It would be great, except that for all its 2000MB installation, it >> didn't actually work. > > Do you ever think it might be you? No, certainly not. > I get the feeling lots of people run > Haskell on Windows. Presumably FCVO "lots". :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web