Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63278 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 442 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 14:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 14:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 09:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 18:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-16 14:53 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-17 11:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:11 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 12:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 09:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 18:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 11:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 20:47 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 03:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:46 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-17 10:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 16:00 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 08:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-19 10:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 11:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 15:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 08:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-19 21:02 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 18:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:25 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-21 12:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:54 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:46 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 03:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-20 09:01 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 21:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-21 22:41 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 00:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-22 08:14 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 07:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:25 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 18:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 11:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:04 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-24 09:19 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 20:29 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-23 12:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration crisdunbar@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 12:48 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 13:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 21:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 14:05 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 06:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:19 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 08:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-20 17:34 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 16:59 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 18:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 21:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 14:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 13:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:49 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 16:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:33 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:33 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-20 15:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2015-06-19 10:10 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 12:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 21:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 13:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 14:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 13:45 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 16:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:26 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 20:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 01:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 17:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 01:12 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:35 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 10:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:31 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-20 15:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 15:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 11:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 05:36 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:12 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 17:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 10:58 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 10:37 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 09:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:42 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-12 21:21 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 13:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 09:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 21:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 14:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 00:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-12 20:57 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 22:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 13:22 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:05 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 19:04 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:28 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 09:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 11:01 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 03:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-13 19:56 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 08:27 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 18:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-13 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-14 11:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-15 12:59 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-20 17:32 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 07:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-13 11:58 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 05:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:49 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 12:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:17 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 20:54 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 13:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 13:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 22:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:40 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:14 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:06 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 00:14 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-24 05:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 10:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 11:19 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 07:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-14 17:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-15 23:28 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 22:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 21:22 -0500
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:41 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 03:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 22:57 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 17:09 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:47 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 23:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 17:13 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 23:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-24 21:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:36 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 11:55 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 00:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-06-25 01:47 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 20:24 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 10:00 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 14:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 07:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:16 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 19:55 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:02 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-25 18:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 12:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:03 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 18:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 10:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 19:07 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:43 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:26 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:45 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 14:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:57 +1200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 15:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 17:24 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 08:30 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-25 16:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 20:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:19 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 20:04 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 11:42 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:01 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 20:46 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-27 16:37 -0500
[OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:25 +0200
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 05:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-26 14:18 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 06:31 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:20 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 08:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:24 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:30 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 13:40 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 14:09 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 14:23 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 22:12 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 03:03 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-27 13:08 +0100
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-27 13:06 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:51 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:59 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:13 +0000
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:43 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-27 08:55 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 11:25 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-26 08:56 -0700
Re: [OT] was Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:05 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-25 12:46 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 10:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 04:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 12:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:05 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:42 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:17 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 10:32 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 20:53 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 17:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 12:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 04:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 14:21 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 06:40 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 17:38 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-29 22:10 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 15:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-28 11:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 10:43 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 08:50 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 12:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 13:20 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 10:25 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 09:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:05 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:43 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-27 12:18 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 05:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 14:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 06:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-27 13:55 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:15 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 07:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 15:56 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 08:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-27 21:35 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-27 18:58 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 12:35 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-27 13:21 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 11:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 12:07 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-28 11:02 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:12 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-03 17:25 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 11:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 15:17 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 12:31 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-23 21:11 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 20:22 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 12:39 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-23 01:51 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 19:55 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-06-22 22:51 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 02:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 11:08 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 00:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 09:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 11:03 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:06 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 14:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:33 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:15 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:23 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 15:50 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:51 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 10:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-22 19:26 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:37 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 17:04 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 08:44 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:01 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 15:22 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:00 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 08:26 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 23:06 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 22:20 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-22 21:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 14:21 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-20 10:30 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 02:14 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 10:52 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:52 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-17 15:32 -0400
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 19:58 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:02 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 17:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 17:57 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 18:37 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:44 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-15 19:39 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 19:45 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-15 20:31 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 13:29 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 19:09 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 18:10 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-16 00:30 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 17:41 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-15 20:58 -0600
Re: typedef forward declaration Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-16 09:43 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 12:27 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-06-16 09:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-16 19:18 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-15 10:13 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-15 18:24 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 21:47 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 06:24 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Lőrinczy Zsigmond <nospam@for.me> - 2015-06-15 21:20 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-15 18:08 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:18 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-26 18:46 +0200
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:28 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-13 05:34 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-13 21:40 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 09:27 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-14 20:11 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:20 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 12:50 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 16:56 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 17:16 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 01:28 +0100
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 04:38 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 08:54 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 08:57 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 17:03 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 05:10 +0000
Re: typedef forward declaration Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-14 22:59 -0700
Re: typedef forward declaration "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 13:14 -0700
Page 20 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 16:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmbtk4$24t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63946 |
On 23/06/15 16:04, David Brown wrote: <snip> > But if n is the biggest interesting number, then surely (n + 1) is > interesting as it is the first uninteresting number. Thus the set is > infinite. Your conclusion is correct, but your argument lacks rigour. Even if n is the biggest interesting number (and I think you actually mean "integer" here), that does not mean that all integers below it /are/ interesting. It is often argued that there is no such thing as an uninteresting integer because, if there were, either there would only be one (in which case the *only* uninteresting number would be very interesting for all kinds of reasons) or there must be a lowest such number, which again would be very interesting. This argument is itself slightly flawed, since it assumes that we are only concerned with positive (or at least non-negative) integers. Fortunately, a mirror argument can be applied to the uninteresting negative integers. With all that in place, your conclusion is justifiable. *All* integers are interesting. And therefore, interestingly, Keith Thompson is wrong for a change. -- 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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 08:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2uua0ps.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #63952 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> With all that in place, your
> conclusion is justifiable. *All* integers are interesting. And
> therefore, interestingly, Keith Thompson is wrong for a change.
And interestingly, Richard Heathfield is wrong for a change, since
I've been wrong before, and it's not that much of a change.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <014e29f1-5a21-4f60-a210-c542111026c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63952 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:24:13 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/06/15 16:04, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > > > But if n is the biggest interesting number, then surely (n + 1) is > > interesting as it is the first uninteresting number. Thus the set is > > infinite. > > Your conclusion is correct, but your argument lacks rigour. Even if n is > the biggest interesting number (and I think you actually mean "integer" > here), that does not mean that all integers below it /are/ interesting. > > It is often argued that there is no such thing as an uninteresting > integer because, if there were, either there would only be one (in which > case the *only* uninteresting number would be very interesting for all > kinds of reasons) or there must be a lowest such number, which again > would be very interesting. This argument is itself slightly flawed, > since it assumes that we are only concerned with positive (or at least > non-negative) integers. Fortunately, a mirror argument can be applied to > the uninteresting negative integers. With all that in place, your > conclusion is justifiable. *All* integers are interesting. And > therefore, interestingly, Keith Thompson is wrong for a change. There is the old riddle about the condemned man who is sentenced to be executed during the next year on a day when he isn't expecting to be executed. It can't be the last day of the year because that being the only day he would expect it. So it can't be the day before that for the same reason. and so on. When then could he be executed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbng69i9t.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #63958 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> There is the old riddle about the condemned man who is sentenced to be
> executed during the next year on a day when he isn't expecting to be
> executed. It can't be the last day of the year because that being the only
> day he would expect it. So it can't be the day before that for the same
> reason. and so on. When then could he be executed?
The prisoner has concluded, with rigorous logic, that he can never be
executed, because there can be no day when he isn't expecting it.
They execute him on January 17. He never expected it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9af17cbf-0af6-420e-8fc7-10b1fc5f52d9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64000 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes: > [...] > > There is the old riddle about the condemned man who is sentenced to be > > executed during the next year on a day when he isn't expecting to be > > executed. It can't be the last day of the year because that being the only > > day he would expect it. So it can't be the day before that for the same > > reason. and so on. When then could he be executed? > > The prisoner has concluded, with rigorous logic, that he can never be > executed, because there can be no day when he isn't expecting it. > > They execute him on January 17. He never expected it. I set it up. You spike it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <faae4947-301e-4b9d-984f-64b25f56665b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64067 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 10:57:05 AM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > > There is the old riddle about the condemned man who is sentenced
> > > to be executed during the next year on a day when he isn't expecting
> > > to be executed. It can't be the last day of the year because that
> > > being the only day he would expect it. So it can't be the day before
> > > that for the same reason. and so on. When then could he be executed?
> >
> > The prisoner has concluded, with rigorous logic, that he can never be
> > executed, because there can be no day when he isn't expecting it.
> > They execute him on January 17. He never expected it.
>
> I set it up. You spike it.
The way it's worded ("during the next year"), they could've executed
him that same day as well. He would never have expected that either.
"C'mon. Let's go."
"But you said 'during the NEXT year.'"
"Yes, that's the time spanning forward to 365 days from today."
"I didn't see that coming."
"Exactly!"
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 08:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln381h9lfz.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #64067 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3:23:02 PM UTC-7, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > There is the old riddle about the condemned man who is sentenced to be
>> > executed during the next year on a day when he isn't expecting to be
>> > executed. It can't be the last day of the year because that being the only
>> > day he would expect it. So it can't be the day before that for the same
>> > reason. and so on. When then could he be executed?
>>
>> The prisoner has concluded, with rigorous logic, that he can never be
>> executed, because there can be no day when he isn't expecting it.
>>
>> They execute him on January 17. He never expected it.
>
> I set it up. You spike it.
8-)}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
It's surprisingly difficult to resolve the paradox; apparently there is
no consensus. The real question is, what was wrong with the prisoner's
reasoning? I'll have to study the cited article (which I hadn't read
before) when I have more time.
Of course this is off-topic, so I'll try to resist the temptation to
comment further (though my resistance so far has not been entirely
successful).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 23:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mmchm9$m5l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63952 |
On 23/06/15 17:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/06/15 16:04, David Brown wrote: > > <snip> > >> But if n is the biggest interesting number, then surely (n + 1) is >> interesting as it is the first uninteresting number. Thus the set is >> infinite. > > Your conclusion is correct, but your argument lacks rigour. Even if n is > the biggest interesting number (and I think you actually mean "integer" > here), that does not mean that all integers below it /are/ interesting. > I have indeed been lax about using "number" rather than "positive integer". That's just laziness on my part (and therefore neither interesting, nor a change). The question really is, if (n + 1) is interesting because it is the first uninteresting number, then n is no longer the biggest interesting number - (n + 1) is. Thus n is no longer interesting (assuming we have already reached the point where "being the biggest interesting or smallest uninteresting number" is the only interesting thing about these numbers). So although this argument has increased the highest bound of the set of interesting numbers, it has not increased the number of interesting numbers. Therefore the set of interesting numbers is finite in size, but unbounded. (Yes, I know there are flaws in that argument too.) > It is often argued that there is no such thing as an uninteresting > integer because, if there were, either there would only be one (in which > case the *only* uninteresting number would be very interesting for all > kinds of reasons) or there must be a lowest such number, which again > would be very interesting. This argument is itself slightly flawed, > since it assumes that we are only concerned with positive (or at least > non-negative) integers. Fortunately, a mirror argument can be applied to > the uninteresting negative integers. With all that in place, your > conclusion is justifiable. *All* integers are interesting. And > therefore, interestingly, Keith Thompson is wrong for a change. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmcifv$p40$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63991 |
On 23/06/15 22:06, David Brown wrote: > The question really is, if (n + 1) is interesting because it is the > first uninteresting number, then n is no longer the biggest interesting > number - (n + 1) is. Thus n is no longer interesting (assuming we have > already reached the point where "being the biggest interesting or > smallest uninteresting number" is the only interesting thing about these > numbers). Ah, but then n becomes interesting for being the first integer to *start off* as interesting and then become uninteresting. It would take far too long to go into the mathematics of it here, but it can be shown that such integers enter into an oscillating state, toggling between interest and ennui at a phenomenal rate, and in so doing they release energy in the form of an electric charge, which is either positive or negative, depending on whether they started out as interesting or uninteresting (curiously, +ve = started as uninteresting, -ve = started as interesting, yet another indication that Benjamin Franklin may have mis-labelled these charges). This discovery has revolutionised sub-atomic physics, and scientists are still working on the cosmological implications. There is one exception to this rule, which is the integer 0. Some people find it interesting, and others don't, that 0 is particularly interesting (or not, as the case may be) for being neither interesting nor uninteresting. If you were to dissect a neutron, you'd find it absolutely packed to the gunwales with 0s. -- 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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vbefh4zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63841 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > [...] >>> An integer is not a finite quantity, >> >> Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C. > > Mathematically, any integer is finite, but the set of integers is > infinite. How is that relevant? > C's integer types model a subrange of the infinite > mathematical set of integers. Yes and no. The values they represent are a subset of Z, but objects of some C integer types can hold bit patterns that do not represent integers. These are not valid values of the type, but they might be considered part of the set modelled by objects of the type. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnioafbfsh.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #63861 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> An integer is not a finite quantity,
>>>
>>> Yes it is -- both mathematically and in C.
>>
>> Mathematically, any integer is finite, but the set of integers is
>> infinite.
>
> How is that relevant?
I'm not at all sure that it is. I was just trying to clarify whatever
point was being made.
>> C's integer types model a subrange of the infinite
>> mathematical set of integers.
>
> Yes and no. The values they represent are a subset of Z, but objects of
> some C integer types can hold bit patterns that do not represent
> integers. These are not valid values of the type, but they might be
> considered part of the set modelled by objects of the type.
Fair enough. (In most implementations no such representations exist,
but that's beside the point.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mm3bp4$e06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63648 |
On 20/06/2015 01:52, Keith Thompson wrote: > What I'm looking for is a concrete example of C code that actually > depends on the size of a pointer, or on pointers of different types > being the same size ... > I might happen to know that pointers are 8 bytes on the particular > machine I'm using, but knowing that is rarely useful, and if I just > ignore that fact when I'm writing code, that code is more likely > to work on machines with 4-byte pointers. I've written plenty of code where pointer sizes are a consideration. Sometimes the incorrect assumption is made that the pointer size is the same as the int size (which is true on x86-32 for example), and code will break or become inefficient on anything else. Then you have to at least /think/ about the relative sizes of ints and pointers. Example 1: You have an int array of mixed usage where some of those ints are actually pointers (using casts to and from int). That won't work when pointers are 64 bits. Declaring the array differently (as an array of unions) is a big deal, because it changes too much. Or you might need to declare it as an intptr_t array instead. That might work, but it is now inefficient on a 64-bit machine because all non-pointers will be double the size they need be (so might all the pointers for that matter because you're addressing less than 2GB). So you might choose to replace pointers with indices (if the application makes that viable). It does mean thinking about pointer sizes. Example 2: Was going to be about pointers as struct members, perhaps in nested unions, screwing up any alignments and offsets you thought you were getting when switching to a different machine. While you can choose int32_t etc to carefully craft a struct to exact specifications, you can't choose the size of pointer in the same way! Although you might get away with assuming it will be either 32 or 64 bits. With different sizes of pointers for different pointer targets, I've usually assumed they are the same. To do it properly however would require a different approach in some cases. If a pointer has to work as int* as well as char* for example, I can't just use int* then cast to char* as needed. I'd need to start with void* and /always/ cast to int* or char*. Or start using unions and make sure one element is void*. But then, you use a void* as a function parameter instead of int*, and now you can pass a double* without an error being flagged. So it's something else that people need to think about. But it's not very interesting to do so especially when the likelihood of such pointers being different is remote. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55852d88.2010250@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #63645 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 4:45:36 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Again, exactly what advantage do you derive from such a requirement? > > Do you have concrete examples? > > It would allow code written in C to always work on that target virtual > machine, one that could be supported with a thin framework no matter > the architecture, and without recompiling. If you want Java, you know where to find it. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 02:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a1795a7-1dc5-4e31-aa1f-9f0cdcbc6118@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63672 |
On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 5:08:54 AM UTC-4, Richard Bos wrote: > If you want Java, you know where to find it. I do not want Java. I find Java interesting, but it's also bloatware. VMs should be small, tight, not introducing anymore overhead than they need to, relying on whatever's already installed in the OS to handle services (UI mostly), and providing a set of guaranteed abilities. Visual FreePro targets a virtual machine called the VVM. I have targeted a maximum size for it of 5 MB, and I think I can do it in 3 MB, and it includes some higher level abilities such as knowing how to handle weakly typed objects and variables at the assembly opcode level. Now, we'll just see if the Lord will give me time and health to complete it (He knows how much time I've squandered in my life thus far). Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 09:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55852d30.1921750@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #63642 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > You've also said it should assume a fixed number of CPU registers. > > Again, exactly what advantage do you derive from such a requirement? > Do you have concrete examples? More to the point, how are you going to write C code that proves the opposite? I can't imagine any C that counts how many registers your chip has, let alone code for which it matters. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e071462-2558-4fb4-a8a4-7d4aff0471c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63435 |
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Barry Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:22:28 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10:01:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> >> On 15/06/15 17:30, David Kleinecke wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > typedef struct {S* s;} R;
> >> >> > typedef struct {R* r;} S;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > should work
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you try it? What did your compiler tell you?
> >> >>
> >> >> > (because the compiler can determine the size of R since
> >> >> > void* is a pointer) but I don't think the standards allow this.
> >> >>
> >> >> They don't. I would imagine BartC has already tried this "solution" and
> >> >> discovered for himself that it doesn't work.
> >> >
> >> > I tried it once years and years ago and was surprised when it didn't
> >> > work because it was easy and obvious how it could be compiled. But I
> >> > think perhaps the difficulty is that even though the size of an S* is
> >> > known the type isn't
> >>
> >> No, the size of an S* is not known until the type of S is known.
> >
> >Can't agree. S* is a pointer and its size is the size of a pointer and
> >has nothing to do with the type of S
>
> So you believe that sizeof (int*) must be the same as sizeof(char*)?
> On what do you base this belief? The standard clearly identifies the
> three conditions for which this must be true but none of them apply to
> this situation.
Implicit in the use of void*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvzyp3qd.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #63440 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 10:34:42 AM UTC-7, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:46:03 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
>> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:22:28 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> >> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10:01:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> >> >> On 15/06/15 17:30, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > typedef struct {S* s;} R;
>> >> >> > typedef struct {R* r;} S;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > should work
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did you try it? What did your compiler tell you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > (because the compiler can determine the size of R since
>> >> >> > void* is a pointer) but I don't think the standards allow this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They don't. I would imagine BartC has already tried this "solution" and
>> >> >> discovered for himself that it doesn't work.
>> >> >
>> >> > I tried it once years and years ago and was surprised when it didn't
>> >> > work because it was easy and obvious how it could be compiled. But I
>> >> > think perhaps the difficulty is that even though the size of an S* is
>> >> > known the type isn't
>> >>
>> >> No, the size of an S* is not known until the type of S is known.
>> >
>> >Can't agree. S* is a pointer and its size is the size of a pointer and
>> >has nothing to do with the type of S
>>
>> So you believe that sizeof (int*) must be the same as sizeof(char*)?
>> On what do you base this belief? The standard clearly identifies the
>> three conditions for which this must be true but none of them apply to
>> this situation.
>
> Implicit in the use of void*.
No. As long as void* is as big as the largest object pointer, it can
hold them (or do some compiler magic equivalent to this).
You can put an char into a long and then put it back in a char. And you
can put an int in a long and put it back in an int. That doesn't mean
that char and int are the same size.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 15:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5581CB66.5060109@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #63435 |
David Kleinecke wrote:
> Can't agree. S* is a pointer and its size is the size of a pointer and
> has nothing to do with the type of S
S has not been declared yet, so S* isn't anything but a syntax error.
If S had been declared as a typedef, the C standard allows the size of a
pointer to depend upon the type that the pointer points at, and there
have been a fair number of fully conforming C compilers that have taken
advantage of that fact.
David Kleinecke wrote:
> It sems to me implicit in the standard that all pointers have the same
> size. Maybe I am misreading the standard. ...
You have misread it. Relevant citations:
"A pointer to void shall have the same representation and alignment
requirements as a pointer to a character type. Similarly, pointers to
qualified or unqualified versions of compatible types shall have the
same representation and alignment requirements. All pointers to
structure types shall have the same representation and alignment
requirements as each other. All pointers to union types shall have the
same representation and alignment requirements as each other. Pointers
to other types need not have the same representation or alignment
requirements." (6.2.5p28)
Same representation and alignment imply that they are the same size; any
two pointer types not connected by one of those requirements can have
different sizes.
"The representations of all types are unspecified except as stated in
this subclause." (6.2.6.1p2)
And nowhere else in that subclause does it require that all pointer
types have the same representation.
> ... But the existence and use of
> void* implies (to me) that all pointers have the same size.
"A pointer to any object type may be converted to a pointer to void and
back again; the result shall compare equal to the original pointer."
(6.3.2.3p1).
This implies, correctly, that void* must be able to store all the
information needed to allow the reverse conversion. However, it need not
store that information in the same format as the pointer-to-object type.
It could even store the information in a more compact format, though
that's unlikely.
Note that the reverse conversion is not required to work: conversion of
a void* to a pointer-to-object type and back again is NOT required to to
compare equal to the original pointer.
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:34:42 PM UTC-4, Barry Schwarz wrote:
>> So you believe that sizeof (int*) must be the same as sizeof(char*)?
>
> In a modern, flat memory model compiler? Yes, categorically.
What imposes this requirement ("must")? The C standard doesn't.
Historically, the reasons why real world C compilers have supported
pointers to objects of multiple sizes had nothing to do with the memory
model not being flat - they had to do with the hardware-addressable
memory unit being too large to be used as a byte size. I suppose you
could argue that a system "must" have pointers of the same size to be
considered "modern" by you - but that's a personal judgment, it's
certainly not something that is officially required.
>> On what do you base this belief?
> Obviousness.
What seems obvious is often false, and this is an example. I recommend
finding a firmer foundation for your beliefs than "obviousness".
In the real world, the single most common alternative to having all
pointers the same size is to have pointers be two different sizes. This
commonly occurs on machines where the hardware-addressable memory unit
(often referred to as the "word") is too large to justify setting
CHAR_BIT to the size of that unit. On such machines, if _Alignof(type)
>= bytes_per_word, then a "type*" is typically implemented by a simple
machine address pointing to the word where the object is located.
However, if _Alignof(type) < bytes_per_word, then a pointer will consist
of a machine address of the word where the start of the object resides,
plus the byte offset within that word where the start may be found. This
necessarily applies to void*, and [[un]signed] char*; it might apply to
other pointer types as well.
As a result, pointers to such types require more bits, and might
(depending upon the size of the address space) require more bytes. This
fact can be hidden by having all pointers be the same, larger size - but
the cited clauses from the C standard above allow the pointer types to
have different sizes, and there have been (and, I believe, still are) a
fair number of C compilers which have taken advantage of that fact.
Note: _Alignof() is a C2011 feature, but I'm just using it here as
convenient notation. My comments are not intended to imply that the
compilers I'm describing actually support _Alignof(), only that they had
the concept that types can have alignment requirements, a concept that
predates the first C standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-17 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wpz2rwkp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63428 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:22:28 AM UTC-7, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 10:01:34 AM UTC-7, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> >> On 15/06/15 17:30, David Kleinecke wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > typedef struct {S* s;} R;
>> >> > typedef struct {R* r;} S;
>> >> >
>> >> > should work
>> >>
>> >> Did you try it? What did your compiler tell you?
>> >>
>> >> > (because the compiler can determine the size of R since
>> >> > void* is a pointer) but I don't think the standards allow this.
>> >>
>> >> They don't. I would imagine BartC has already tried this "solution" and
>> >> discovered for himself that it doesn't work.
>> >
>> > I tried it once years and years ago and was surprised when it didn't
>> > work because it was easy and obvious how it could be compiled. But I
>> > think perhaps the difficulty is that even though the size of an S* is
>> > known the type isn't
>>
>> No, the size of an S* is not known until the type of S is known.
>
> Can't agree. S* is a pointer and its size is the size of a pointer and
> has nothing to do with the type of S
All I can say is that the language definition does not make that
guarantee. You should say if you can see where you think it does.
And it's not just a theoretical issue. Some hardware (particularly
"Harvard architecture" machines) have different code address widths to
data address widths (though this can sometimes be hidden form the C
programmer if the implementation wants to try). Mind you, the
permissions in C goes further. It would be possible, on a word
addressed machine, to add bits to an address to make a char * (and and
void * -- these must be binary compatible).
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-15 20:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871thc23te.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #63291 |
David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
<snip>
>> On 15/06/15 14:08, Bartc wrote:
>> > How do I create forward typedefs?
<snip>
> typedef struct {S* s;} R;
> typedef struct {R* r;} S;
>
> should work (because the compiler can determine the size of R since
> void* is a pointer) but I don't think the standards allow this.
No, the compiler can't determine the size of R by assuming an S * is
like a void *. If you've ever used a C compiler where, say, function
pointers are bigger than object pointers you'd see the problem at once.
Obviously we can imagine a language almost exactly like C in which this
does work -- one where the subsequent definition of S allows the
compiler to go back a fix up the size of R (and thus of any objects of
type R declared in the gap between them) but, as you speculate, C is not
that language.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web