Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 15 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 22 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpn5pu$9ot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66753 |
On 03/08/15 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or >> any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply >> enough to do "manually" when needed). > > Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* > adding corresponding support to the library. > A few people here also have asked for them to be added to the library. I agree that this would be consistent, and consistency is usually a good idea. The disadvantage is that adding 0b support to the library is a good deal more effort than adding it to the language (which has been shown to be almost trivial) - Tim is right to point out some of the costs of adding library support for binary. And who would use printf, scanf, etc., support for binary? The main users of binary literals would be embedded users, who have very little interest in the library support. I am sure there would be /some/ people who would use it, but Tim's cost/benefit concerns are very different for library support than for binary literals in the source code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnh9noy1fg.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66771 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 03/08/15 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> [...] >>> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or >>> any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply >>> enough to do "manually" when needed). >> >> Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* >> adding corresponding support to the library. > > A few people here also have asked for them to be added to the > library. I agree that this would be consistent, and consistency is > usually a good idea. The disadvantage is that adding 0b support to > the library is a good deal more effort than adding it to the language > (which has been shown to be almost trivial) - Tim is right to point > out some of the costs of adding library support for binary. [snip] There are costs either way. If binary constants are added to both the language and the library, then there are costs associated with changing library behavior. If binary constants are added to the language but not the library, then there is a cost associated with reducing the conceptual integrity of the language (eg, violates the Law of Least Astonishment). IMO the conceptual integrity cost is the higher of the two (and I admit it is very hard to measure). But I think it's fair to say the conceptual integrity cost is at least comparable to the cost of changing the library, and so must not be neglected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55c09c2f.7188937@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66753 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] > > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or > > any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply > > enough to do "manually" when needed). > > Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* > adding corresponding support to the library. Seconded. And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option, suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other symbols than 1 and 0? Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be acceptable. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4mkfghha.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66847 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>> > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or
>> > any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply
>> > enough to do "manually" when needed).
>>
>> Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and*
>> adding corresponding support to the library.
>
> Seconded.
>
> And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option,
> suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other
> symbols than 1 and 0?
> Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs
> which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and
> 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm
> thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically
> hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list
> of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of
> employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be
> acceptable.
That could be done in code by using sprintf to create a string of 0s and
1s and then looping over them to change them to spaces and Xs.
If you can persuade the committee to add your idea to the standard I
won't object, but I personally don't think it carries its weight.
For one thing, it seems insufficiently flexible. Sure, sometimes you
want to print text consisting of spaces and Xs, but restricting the
number of characters to the number of bits in the widest integer type
(typically 64) seems arbitrary.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55c75594.15703765@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66868 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option, > > suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other > > symbols than 1 and 0? > > Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs > > which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and > > 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm > > thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically > > hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list > > of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of > > employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be > > acceptable. > > That could be done in code by using sprintf to create a string of 0s and > 1s and then looping over them to change them to spaces and Xs. Sure, but (at least IYAM) such code would be so common that it would be natural to make the library do it - _if_ we're making it print binaries in the first place. > If you can persuade the committee to add your idea to the standard I > won't object, but I personally don't think it carries its weight. > > For one thing, it seems insufficiently flexible. Sure, sometimes you > want to print text consisting of spaces and Xs, but restricting the > number of characters to the number of bits in the widest integer type > (typically 64) seems arbitrary. Not text, flags. And the flags come in units of CHAR_BIT anyway. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwr7tomc.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66683 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > (I've been on holiday for a week or so - my apologies if anything I > write here covers points already raised by others, which I haven't yet > read.) > > On 26/07/15 05:17, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 10/07/15 19:19, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 24/05/15 16:44, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I see no reason to make any of these changes. A binary base >>>>>> isn't useful because the lengths involved make it hard to >>>>>> see just what the value is (and is error prone to write). >>>>> >>>>> Binary constants of the format 0b0110 made it into C compilers and the >>>>> C++ standards because they are very useful, >>>> >>>> C++ has made lots of decisions which are IMO bad ones. So I guess >>>> I'm not surprised to see another one. >>> >>> That sounds as though you are saying that because binary constants >>> were added to C++, they must be a bad idea (in your humble opinion, >>> of course). >> >> I don't know why you would think that. It isn't what I said. >> Certainly it is not what I meant. > > I can agree that you did not /write/ exactly that - but you > /imply/ that you see C++'s introduction of 0b literals as a good > reason to be sceptical to including them in C, simply because (in > your eyes) C++ has record for introducing bad ideas. You are misunderstanding my comments. I implied no such thing. > (Arguably the fact that C++ supports them makes them less > necessary in C - people who really need binary constants can drop > C and go to C++ instead.) > >>> We have 0b00110 constants in C++ and as en extension on many C >>> compilers precisely because it was useful to /users/. The history >>> of implementation is easy to follow: >>> >>> avr-gcc developers added it because the users and the AVR gcc >>> library developers wanted it. (The AVR is an 8-bit microcontroller, >>> with a gcc port.). It got wider adoption into mainline gcc, and was >>> copied by clang. The C++ standards committee were asked to include >>> it for the benefit of embedded developers - they saw that it was >>> already implemented in mainstream tools, it is useful and is used in >>> practice, and causes no harm to include it. So they added it to >>> their standards. >>> >>> A number of other embedded compilers also support it - either before >>> or after its support in gcc. >> >> I understand that people wanted it, and some compilers put it in >> because it's easy if all you have to think about is taking the >> constants in program source. That isn't the same thing as saying >> it's useful, or that the benefits are worth the cost. > > First, people wanted them because they /are/ useful to embedded > developers. I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective supporting evidence. > The people who asked for them were people who write > code for embedded systems, and who had to use hex or decimal > literals where binary literals would be neater and clearer. There > were also people who had found similar features useful on other > compilers, or used headers full of macros like "#define B00000001 > 0x01". > > No one is claiming that binary literals are essential, nor that > they are used a lot - but sometimes they can be very useful in > writing clearer and neater code. > > So please let us put this one to rest - they /are/ a useful > feature, people want them, and people use them (since they are > already implemented in many embedded compilers). > > And there can be no doubt that it would be better for the people > that use binary literals, and the compilers that support them, for > them to be made part of newer C standards as they are in newer C++ > standards. The question is how useful, and at what cost, and what are the comparisons with alternatives. > Given how small a change this is to the language, it would not be > difficult to add support for 0b binary literals to existing C > compilers (Bart said it took merely a few minutes for him - even > with documentation, test cases, etc., it is not a big change). > Most serious C compilers these days are part of a compiler suite > supporting C++ as well - sooner or later they will have binary > literal support anyway. And I have explained in several places that there are other costs that are more significant. > Ian gave a link showing the C++ proposal for adding 0b binary > literals, which shows the minor changes needed to the C++ > standards to support them. There is no reason to expect that > changes to the C standards would be any more dramatic. I read it. First it wasn't an argument that they should be added, just a description of what the changes should be. Second the attitude of the C++ community towards new language features is markedly different from that of the C community. Third because of other features in C++ the respective considerations in the two languages are quite a bit different. So that document doesn't make the case for making a change to C. > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, > or any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is > simply enough to do "manually" when needed). That's wrong - some people have asked for such support, if binary constants were added to the language; based on that I think not adding such support would be a bad choice for the C community generally. > There would be no conflict with any existing code. > > Thus I think it is pretty clear that the costs are minimal. It is > hard to imagine a change to the language with lower costs. You keep saying that. And I keep saying in response let's see some objective and quantitative evidence. > So even if the change only benefits a fraction of C programmers, > it is useful to them, cost-free to other users, and minimal cost > to compiler writers and the C standards committee. That sounds to > me like benefits that are worth the cost. Opinions are worth nothing here. Do you have nothing better? > (And remember that the C++ committee agree on that score, and I > presume they did a better cost/benefit analysis than either you or > I.) First, they agree for C++, which has different considerations. Second, considering the track record for C++ language features, I don't especially see any reason to assume they did a good job. In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community. >>> Of course, since /you/ think it is a bad idea, everyone else is >>> clearly wrong. >> >> There's no reason to be sarcastic. If we have a difference of >> opinion, we can explore that difference in a civilized way. > > I have yet to hear anything concrete from you other than that you > think binary literals are a bad idea. You have offered no > justification for claims that they are not useful, nor any > justification for claims that they would be costly. I am not > asking for any references or statistics - a short reasoning would > be enough to get started. First, I have given some reasons for both of those. Second, and more important, let me say this again in all capitals - THE BURDEN IS ON THOSE PROPOSING A LANGUAGE CHANGE TO JUSTIFY THE CHANGE. It's your job to convince other people, not the other way around. >>>>> particularly in embedded programming where we live in a world of >>>>> bits for device registers, IO ports, and so on. [snip >>>>> elaboration] >>>> >>>> I don't find this motivation convincing. ISTM that in such >>>> cases one would want to define symbolic names for the various >>>> masks, etc, and use those rather than putting binary constants >>>> everywhere, in which cases the exact form of the constant >>>> used is of much less importance. (Surely you don't mean to >>>> suggest that embedded programmers are guilty of bad programming >>>> practices?) Moreover I think it's likely that the documentation >>>> that describes such fields gives their values in octal, decimal, >>>> or hex rather than binary, excepting perhaps for masks which >>>> are better described in terms of width and position than using >>>> a long binary constant. >>> >>> I think that like many programmers (including me), you believe >>> your own niche to be the most important, and extrapolate from it >>> to other areas of programming. You are not an embedded systems >>> developer, and in particular you don't work with small >>> microcontrollers. You don't read datasheets, you don't work with >>> these small systems, you don't write libraries or headers for >>> them, and you don't live in a world of bits and bytes. So please >>> don't try to make sweeping statements about when binary constants >>> may or may not be useful to embedded programmers. >> >> An ad hominem argument. It's insulting and presumptuous of you >> to tell me what my background and experience is. Furthermore >> it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you are more >> interested in scoring debate points than in understanding the >> truth of the matter. > > I have been programming small embedded systems for over 20 years, > in C, assembly, and a little C++. I have read (as in close to > "cover to cover") many hundreds of datasheets. I have worked > seriously with perhaps a dozen different microcontroller and cpu > architectures. It is certainly possible that you have worked with > embedded systems - as you say, I don't know your background and > experiences, and "embedded" is a very wide field. (For example, > Ian also works with embedded systems - > yet I think there is quite a difference in the sorts of systems we > usually work with, and the types of development we usually do.) > > But I am fed up with /you/ telling /me/ about small systems > embedded development, and how small systems developers want to > write their code, and how our datasheets and documents are > written. You have misunderstood my comments. I haven't said anything about any of these. (I did make a comment about documents generally, but not about documents relating to embedded development in particular.) > /I/ am telling /you/ that datasheets use binary > regularly, and they almost never use octal. Okay, for the sake of discussion I will accept that as given. > I am telling you that > embedded programmers like to be able to write binary literals on > occasion, and many find them useful in writing clearer code. > > If another experienced embedded programmer (such as Ian) > contradicts this, it is worth listening to him. But with all due > respect for your knowledge and experience of programming, you > cannot speak for small systems embedded developers. I'm not speaking for them, nor am I trying to. And actually what they want or what they think is not especially interesting, because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. What are the actual productivity gains, and how do those compare to alternatives? What people imagine and what is objectively true often are quite different - that's why I'm looking for the latter, not the former. >>> The reality is that datasheets will use binary, decimal or >>> hexadecimal as appropriate - with register fields being usually >>> either binary or hexadecimal. (Octal is almost never used. I can >>> only remember seeing it in the context of an ASCII character set >>> on a small display, and that was a decade or two ago.) >> >> If you have facts and evidence to present, by all means present >> them. Sweeping generalizations are meaningless. > > You want me to provide links for datasheets that use binary? > > Here's a couple of random microcontroller reference manuals. > > <http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8077.pdf> > <http://cache.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/KL03P24M48SF0RM.pdf> As above I am willing to stipulate this for the sake of furthering the discussion. > Or do you want me to prove that octal is almost never used? Given the above stipulation I think it's fair to say that this question is moot. >>> And the reality is that programmers will sometimes want to use >>> hexadecimal constants in their code, and sometimes decimal, and >>> sometimes binary, and sometimes using a shift notation such as (1u >>> << 4). And sometimes they will want to give the constants a name >>> or enum value in a header file or at the start of the C file, and >>> sometimes they will want to use the constant directly in the code. >>> Sometimes that might be "bad" programming practice - but sometimes >>> it might be good practice. >> >> Even assuming all that is true, and I'm not sure it is, that >> doesn't excuse not looking at the costs or comparing the costs >> against the marginal utility gained. Have you, or has anyone >> for that matter, even made an effort to estimate the marginal >> utility in programmer time or program development cost? If the >> argument is that it's valuable then we should try to find out >> what the value is, in objective terms. > > Please tell us your experience in this area, and how often you > have worked with low-level and bare-metal programming on small > microcontrollers. That will help us judge the value of your gut > feelings about how useful binary literals may or may not be to > programmers in this area. I have no interest in judging gut feelings. My opinion, or your opinion, or anyone's opinion, is not what is needed here. > As for the supposed costs for implementing 0b binary literals, I > can only point out /again/ that they are already implemented on > many major compilers, either as an extension in C or as a > standards requirement in C++, and that the costs for > standardisation in C++ were minimal. Same comments as given above. > I am fully in agreement with you that any change requires a > consideration and balance between the usefulness of the change and > its costs. The disagreement is that you /imagine/ binary literals > to be of little real use, while I /know/ they are used in the real > world of embedded programming, and that you /imagine/ them to have > high costs, while I /know/ they are already implemented at low > cost. First, if you don't have any objective supporting evidence, what you "know" is of no value. Second, what we are interested in is not the cost of adding binary literals to one compiler but the TCO for making a language change. Somehow the people proposing the change keep ignoring the distinction between those two, even though it has been pointed out repeatedly. > Trying to turn all this into an objective, quantifiable cost/benefit > analysis with statistics of man-hours saved or cost is a worthy goal > in theory - but in practice it is a waste of time in this case. It > would take far longer merely to specify such a study properly than it > would to simply add the required few lines to the next C standards > draft. Remember, the equivalent C++ proposal document was 3 pages - > the C proposal would be similar. You think it's a waste of time. I say if someone won't even make even some effort to provide some sort of objective evidence their proposal should be rejected out of hand. So if what we're talking about is just opinion, you are welcome to yours but it hasn't changed mine. >> Related to that, it is my pleasure to pass along a link from a >> posting by Glen Herrmannsfeldt, to a talk about these kinds of >> questions. You might find it interesting; I certainly did. >> >> https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 > > I haven't watched it yet, but I will do so. > >>> So please just accept the reality that 0b binary constants are a >>> useful feature, and would be a worthwhile addition to the C >>> standards that would be welcomed by many embedded programmers, and >>> happily ignored by most non-embedded programmers. >> >> If it's so important to you for binary constants to be added to >> C, why don't you put in the effort of doing a serious >> costs/benefits investigation, considering all the ramifications, >> rather than just huffing and puffing? When considering new >> language features to be added to C, the burden of proof is >> generally understood to be on those proposing the change. And >> that is as it should be. > > It is not important for embedded programmers that these are added > to the C standards - embedded programmers already have 0b binary > literals in their compilers. It is important for the C standards > committee - they have to follow what happens in the real world, or > face increasing irrelevance. Well if it isn't important, just drop it. I'm okay with some people deciding C is no longer relevant. That will make it easier for those of us who still think it is. > If we were to ask about 0b binary literals in comp.arch.embedded, > where there are a great deal more practical-minded embedded > developers, we would see several answers. There would be those > people that use them, because they are useful and they work with > their toolchains. There would be people who would want to use > them, but unfortunately their toolchains don't support them. > There would be people who had never thought about them, but now > will start to use them. There would be people who would like to > use them, but their coding standard mandates strict ANSI C (or > whatever). And there will be people who think they are a nice > idea even though they don't use them personally. > > I think it would be very unlikely to find people who thought they > were a bad idea, or who would only use them if they get added to > the C standards. Once again, AFAIAC personal opinions carry no weight in this matter. It seems like that bothers you. Does it? If so, why does it? > It is the C standards committee that should be worried that people > are using the "gnu11" standard rather than C11 standard. Perhaps so, but I doubt very much that binary constants are the most important consideration there. Furthermore, since C explicitly allows extensions, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with some poeple use gnu11 as far as WG14 is concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msiakh$mjn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69630 |
On 06/09/2015 18:59, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> Trying to turn all this into an objective, quantifiable cost/benefit >> analysis with statistics of man-hours saved or cost is a worthy goal >> in theory - but in practice it is a waste of time in this case. It >> would take far longer merely to specify such a study properly than it >> would to simply add the required few lines to the next C standards >> draft. Remember, the equivalent C++ proposal document was 3 pages - >> the C proposal would be similar. > > You think it's a waste of time. I say if someone won't even make > even some effort to provide some sort of objective evidence their > proposal should be rejected out of hand. So if what we're > talking about is just opinion, you are welcome to yours but it > hasn't changed mine. Always a wide range of opinions in this group. At one end, adding binary literals and separators is apparently such a vast, costly exercise that committees need to be formed to report on whether it is worthwhile doing so. And this only needs to be done once per compiler. At the other, to obtain a library consisting of a .h file, a .a library file, and/or a .dll file, there is nothing wrong with being forced to download 5600 files of msys, and up to 24000 files of a gcc compiler if you don't already have it, in order to do so. Even though this needs to be done once per /computer/. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d548g8FndfhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69630 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >> First, people wanted them because they /are/ useful to embedded >> developers. > > I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective > supporting evidence. If they weren't useful, why would people want them? Do you want to see the feature requests sent to compiler vendors? If not and asking for something isn't sufficient evidence, what is? >> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, >> or any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is >> simply enough to do "manually" when needed). > > That's wrong - some people have asked for such support, if binary > constants were added to the language; based on that I think not > adding such support would be a bad choice for the C community > generally. I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective supporting evidence... >> There would be no conflict with any existing code. >> >> Thus I think it is pretty clear that the costs are minimal. It is >> hard to imagine a change to the language with lower costs. > > You keep saying that. And I keep saying in response let's see > some objective and quantitative evidence. Try asking the compiler vendors? Some of them are in the business of selling tools to embedded developers. They will add features that drive sales and they won't add those that don't: just look at their collective reluctance to fully support C99. >> So even if the change only benefits a fraction of C programmers, >> it is useful to them, cost-free to other users, and minimal cost >> to compiler writers and the C standards committee. That sounds to >> me like benefits that are worth the cost. > > Opinions are worth nothing here. Do you have nothing better? The widespread inclusion of binary literals in embedded compilers? >> (And remember that the C++ committee agree on that score, and I >> presume they did a better cost/benefit analysis than either you or >> I.) > > First, they agree for C++, which has different considerations. > Second, considering the track record for C++ language features, > I don't especially see any reason to assume they did a good job. They may not have done a good job in your non-user's opinion, but that opinion isn't shared by C++ developers and compiler writers. From my perspective the C++ committee listens to programmers, where the C committee imposes features very few programmers want. The situation improved with C11, but that may have been too little too late. > In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to > the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would > agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community. Many of the recent additions reduce complexity. That was one of the aims of C++11 and c++14 goes further. You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new standards because they give us what we have been asking for. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877fs32lf5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62349 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
[...]
> OTOH, if what you really want is to detect letters and numbers in
> general, then there are various is*() functions that are far better for
> that purpose than anything the average programmer will come up with, and
> IMHO we shouldn't tempt him away from the correct solution by offering a
> better way to do the incorrect solution.
I suspect the average programmer wouldn't write a set of is*() and to*(
functions that have undefined behavior when called with a negative
`char` argument other than EOF.
--
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 | bart4858@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7af4f97c-d5f3-4bbd-ab6b-6c5b677fa880@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62349 |
On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 16:59:31 UTC+1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 17-May-15 14:28, Bartc wrote: > > Anyway using a macro such as UPPER is one approach that can work > > provided it's reliably defined, if there is no way to avoid > > enumerating every single character. (Maybe you've noticed there's a > > letter missing.) However this obviously needs to be done; it would be > > better if it was built-in. > > It doesn't seem to be so "obvious" to those who work with languages > other than English, i.e. the majority of humanity. I've already posted the various ways in which that 26-letter alphabet dominates. There's also a reason why it's the set supported in ASCII (now the base-set of Unicode and the only letters that don't need escapes in UTF8). So it is still very important. In fact, you can see A-Z almost anywhere, and everyone will know what is meant. That's in the English speaking world, but it's still a very dominant language, although other languages are available. But if someone is coding in English, then why shouldn't they be able to express A-Z succinctly? (Posting from google-groups (and in a place where the official language isn't English, but nearly everyone speaks it anyway. It gets everywhere) so apologies if this comes out screwed up.) -- bartc > > >> That's part of why we have isupper() et al. > > > > What does it do with character codes 128 to 255? This is an unknown. > > If I'm parsing some input and specifically need to detect A-Z, a-z, > > 0-9 and a few extra, then it's not so useful. > > If you need to detect those _specific_ characters, and you can safely > ignore the million or so other characters, then you can spend a minute > or two writing the cases out--but I agree that "case 'A','B':" would be > a nice syntactic shortcut for such code. We've already demonstrated why > we can't have "case 'A'..'Z':", which I know is what you really want. > > OTOH, if what you really want is to detect letters and numbers in > general, then there are various is*() functions that are far better for > that purpose than anything the average programmer will come up with, and > IMHO we shouldn't tempt him away from the correct solution by offering a > better way to do the incorrect solution. > > S > > -- > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87twv70x0i.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62367 |
bart4858@gmail.com writes:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 16:59:31 UTC+1, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 17-May-15 14:28, Bartc wrote:
>
>> > Anyway using a macro such as UPPER is one approach that can work
>> > provided it's reliably defined, if there is no way to avoid
>> > enumerating every single character. (Maybe you've noticed there's a
>> > letter missing.) However this obviously needs to be done; it would be
>> > better if it was built-in.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be so "obvious" to those who work with languages
>> other than English, i.e. the majority of humanity.
>
> I've already posted the various ways in which that 26-letter alphabet
> dominates.
>
> There's also a reason why it's the set supported in ASCII (now the
> base-set of Unicode and the only letters that don't need escapes in
> UTF8).
>
> So it is still very important. In fact, you can see A-Z almost
> anywhere, and everyone will know what is meant.
>
> That's in the English speaking world, but it's still a very dominant
> language, although other languages are available. But if someone is
> coding in English, then why shouldn't they be able to express A-Z
> succinctly?
Because C doesn't support case ranges.
You think it should. We get it. Speaking only for myself, I don't
necessarily disagree.
But convincing us here in comp.lang.c that C *should* support case
ranges is neither necessary nor sufficient to change the language.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjiu4r$99c$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #62370 |
In article <87twv70x0i.fsf@kst-u.example.com>, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >Because C doesn't support case ranges. > >You think it should. We get it. Speaking only for myself, I don't >necessarily disagree. > >But convincing us here in comp.lang.c that C *should* support case >ranges is neither necessary nor sufficient to change the language. Quite so. I think the salient point here is that gcc *does* support it, and, really, when you get right down to it, why aren't you (very, very rhetorical "you" here) using gcc to compile your code anyway? The choices are pretty clear-cut: If you want maximum flexibility and, dare I say it, fun, in your C programming, then use GCC & POSIX - both of which extend quite a bit the very primitive language described in the beloved ANSI C standards documents. If you want maximum portability then, as is noted many times every day in this newsgroup, stick to *only* what is in those documents. Seems pretty clear to me. Now, if I can just get the GCC folks to add in a "Kenny-style" switch() statement... -- Those on the right constantly remind us that America is not a democracy; now they claim that Obama is a threat to democracy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5560534c.7988296@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62370 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > bart4858@gmail.com writes: > > There's also a reason why it's the set supported in ASCII (now the > > base-set of Unicode and the only letters that don't need escapes in > > UTF8). > > That's in the English speaking world, but it's still a very dominant > > language, although other languages are available. But if someone is > > coding in English, then why shouldn't they be able to express A-Z > > succinctly? > > Because C doesn't support case ranges. > > You think it should. We get it. Speaking only for myself, I don't > necessarily disagree. > > But convincing us here in comp.lang.c that C *should* support case > ranges is neither necessary nor sufficient to change the language. And more to the point, it has absolutely _nothing_ to do with limiting the language's support to ASCII. You can do the former without the latter, or even /vice versa/. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <556052c8.7856531@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62367 |
bart4858@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 16:59:31 UTC+1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > On 17-May-15 14:28, Bartc wrote: > > > > Anyway using a macro such as UPPER is one approach that can work > > > provided it's reliably defined, if there is no way to avoid > > > enumerating every single character. (Maybe you've noticed there's a > > > letter missing.) However this obviously needs to be done; it would be > > > better if it was built-in. > > > > It doesn't seem to be so "obvious" to those who work with languages > > other than English, i.e. the majority of humanity. > > I've already posted the various ways in which that 26-letter alphabet dominates. Yes, but you were wrong then, too. Even in English; at least, if you want to read poetry. Or stories about cagéd whales that know nothing of mighty deeps. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjplnl$dnk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62482 |
On 23/05/2015 11:15, Richard Bos wrote: > bart4858@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 16:59:31 UTC+1, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>> On 17-May-15 14:28, Bartc wrote: >> >>>> Anyway using a macro such as UPPER is one approach that can work >>>> provided it's reliably defined, if there is no way to avoid >>>> enumerating every single character. (Maybe you've noticed there's a >>>> letter missing.) However this obviously needs to be done; it would be >>>> better if it was built-in. >>> >>> It doesn't seem to be so "obvious" to those who work with languages >>> other than English, i.e. the majority of humanity. >> >> I've already posted the various ways in which that 26-letter alphabet dominates. > > Yes, but you were wrong then, too. > Even in English; at least, if you want to read poetry. Or stories about > cagéd whales that know nothing of mighty deeps. You mean because the basic alphabet can't represent that é character? I'm not sure it disproves my assertion that the 26-letter dominates. On my typewriter, I don't have é either. And I don't recall seeing it on Telex machines on Teletypes. My rather more modern phone can't do it, but it can support the groups ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQRS TUV WXYZ associated with the digits 2 to 9. In other words, the basic 26-letter alphabet. And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its default on-screen keyboard anyway. Nor on a Kindle. (And actually, I've no idea how to get é on my PC keyboard other than pasting it from your post!) Looking further afield, it seems that URLs can only use ASCII (anything else needs to be encoded), and I think that web-site names can only use those letters too and some symbols. So if this alphabet isn't dominant, which is? It seems pretty conclusive to me. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877frzgt6n.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #62487 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > On my typewriter, I don't have é either. <snip> > And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its > default on-screen keyboard anyway. My Android phone does it by default -- I just hold the 'e' for a moment to bring up five accented alternatives (just as well as I need to text French and Spanish). <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87twv1qby1.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #62495 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> > > On my typewriter, I don't have é either. > <snip> > > And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its > > default on-screen keyboard anyway. > > My Android phone does it by default -- I just hold the 'e' for a moment > to bring up five accented alternatives (just as well as I need to text > French and Spanish). If you have to press and hold to pull up an additional selection list, then I'd say it's not on the default on-screen keyboard, it's on a selection list of alternatives that are optionally pulled up by a long press. Phil -- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be well regulated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877frxc7fa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #62585 |
Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> <snip> >> > On my typewriter, I don't have é either. >> <snip> >> > And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its >> > default on-screen keyboard anyway. >> >> My Android phone does it by default -- I just hold the 'e' for a moment >> to bring up five accented alternatives (just as well as I need to text >> French and Spanish). > > If you have to press and hold to pull up an additional selection list, > then I'd say it's not on the default on-screen keyboard, it's on a > selection list of alternatives that are optionally pulled up by a long > press. So had BartC said that he does not have a comma, any digits, or a capital 'A' on his Android's default on-screen keyboard you'd have agreed? That interpretation does not make sense given the context of A-Z being "universal" and all the talk about ASCII. The usual interpretation of "keyboard", when it is soft (as it is for on-screen keyboards), is the software, not the "main screen" it displays. Replacing the "default keyboard" usually means installing a new program. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mjqpii$29d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62487 |
On 23-May-15 05:46, Bartc wrote: > My rather more modern phone can't do it, but it can support the > groups ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQRS TUV WXYZ associated with the digits 2 > to 9. In other words, the basic 26-letter alphabet. If it's a smartphone, it can do it. Most dumb phones probably can too (after all, they're sold around the world), but it varies by model. > And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its > default on-screen keyboard anyway. Just hold down the "e" key for a second to display accented versions; that's what the "..." on certain characters denotes. > Nor on a Kindle. Never used one, but I'd bet it's similar. > (And actually, I've no idea how to get é on my PC keyboard other > than pasting it from your post!) If you rarely need them, just use Character Map (for Windows; other platforms have similar tools) to find the character you need and copy it to the clipboard. I have my system set up so I can easily toggle between the standard US and US-International keyboards, and typing accented letters is easy on the latter, though I often forget where some of them are since nobody seems to make keycaps that show the entire set. > Looking further afield, it seems that URLs can only use ASCII > (anything else needs to be encoded), and I think that web-site names > can only use those letters too and some symbols. We've had int'l domain names for years, and most/all browsers and servers these days allow UTF-8 in the path part of URLs as well, though I'm not sure that's actually allowed by the standards. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjqsnb$fdc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62502 |
On 23/05/2015 21:57, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 23-May-15 05:46, Bartc wrote: >> My rather more modern phone can't do it, but it can support the >> groups ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQRS TUV WXYZ associated with the digits 2 >> to 9. In other words, the basic 26-letter alphabet. > > If it's a smartphone, it can do it. Most dumb phones probably can too > (after all, they're sold around the world), but it varies by model. > >> And neither does an Android tablet I've just looked at, not on its >> default on-screen keyboard anyway. > > Just hold down the "e" key for a second to display accented versions; > that's what the "..." on certain characters denotes. Yes, Ben mentioned that earlier. But it's not quite the point... >> Nor on a Kindle. > > Never used one, but I'd bet it's similar. There's a hoop that needs to be jumped through then you have a 'keyboard' full of all the vowel/accent combinations you need. I guess you choose one then get back to the main A-Z layout. (But this button-controlled on-screen keyboard is a complete pita to use anyway even without accented characters.) My point is that A-Z is the de-facto standard, just as the 8-bit byte is, and as the ASCII coding is for that basic alphabet. >> (And actually, I've no idea how to get é on my PC keyboard other >> than pasting it from your post!) > > If you rarely need them, just use Character Map (for Windows; other > platforms have similar tools) to find the character you need and copy it > to the clipboard. (I was writing international applications in the 80s. I designed actual keyboard layouts to use on digitising tablets, where all the special characters could be very easily entered. That was before Windows and Unicode came along to make it hard again!) > I have my system set up so I can easily toggle between the standard US > and US-International keyboards, and typing accented letters is easy on > the latter, though I often forget where some of them are since nobody > seems to make keycaps that show the entire set. (Before laptop computers were available, when I visited clients abroad I had to use their desktop keyboards and even the swapping of Y and Z, or A and W or whatever it was, used to drive me to distraction.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web