Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #161260 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 391 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 13:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 15:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 06:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 18:06 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-06 06:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 16:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 14:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 15:05 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-06 18:58 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-06 21:12 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 21:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 21:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 23:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 17:02 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:42 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-07 17:15 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 20:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 22:17 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 21:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 08:52 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 11:06 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-07 13:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 13:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 07:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 16:15 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 17:53 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 19:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-07 22:26 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 00:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 11:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 11:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-07 19:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-06 15:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-06 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-06 16:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-06 14:20 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-06 15:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Harris <james.harris.1@gmail.com> - 2021-06-07 18:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 08:06 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-08 17:09 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:00 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-08 17:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 18:59 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 00:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 16:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-09 11:40 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 17:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 17:48 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 20:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 21:28 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 23:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 11:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 12:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 15:30 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 15:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 16:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-06-10 17:23 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-10 20:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 17:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 09:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-11 11:25 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 12:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-11 21:14 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 19:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 00:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-11 15:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-11 23:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-11 23:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-12 00:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 01:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 00:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 11:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-12 16:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-12 18:36 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 13:06 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-12 12:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-12 14:13 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 15:16 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 16:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-10 16:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-10 19:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-09 22:37 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-09 15:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-09 23:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-08 09:25 -0600
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-08 16:13 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-06-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-06-08 15:03 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-06-24 10:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-24 13:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-01 17:57 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-07-11 00:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-27 15:47 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 10:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-07-27 23:48 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-27 22:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 00:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 18:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 13:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 14:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 15:44 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 15:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 17:49 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-28 17:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-28 23:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 16:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 11:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 17:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:07 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 19:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 19:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:03 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:16 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 01:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-31 13:42 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 14:56 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 19:33 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 19:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-31 21:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 23:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-08-01 00:43 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:54 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:36 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 13:32 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 14:24 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 16:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-04 16:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 18:40 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-04 19:31 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-07 10:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-07 17:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 08:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 15:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-08-08 17:12 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 20:21 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 20:38 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 22:32 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-08 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 13:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-09 16:08 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 07:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:28 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 16:51 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-09 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 17:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-08 15:30 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 00:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 20:03 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-09 15:05 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 23:48 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 01:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 03:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 16:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 20:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 14:00 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 22:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-09 17:53 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-09 18:27 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 01:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 12:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 02:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-10 09:42 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 17:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 20:19 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 16:51 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 21:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 19:10 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-08 19:56 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-10 21:41 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 15:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-10 23:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-10 20:15 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 08:34 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:46 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 14:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:26 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 15:04 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 03:55 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-11 07:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-10-01 22:40 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-02 01:37 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 14:29 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 18:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 20:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 20:04 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 17:04 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 11:09 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 13:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 08:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 15:06 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 16:47 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 16:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 18:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 19:45 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-11 15:55 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-11 22:47 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:00 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:29 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:03 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-12 15:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 17:55 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 16:59 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 19:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 19:02 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 20:22 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 11:10 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 23:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 16:52 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:22 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 19:51 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-10-01 13:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 16:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 18:45 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 22:17 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-11 21:09 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-11 23:30 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 10:39 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 12:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 16:44 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-12 17:20 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-12 20:00 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-08-12 00:44 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 10:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-08-11 17:52 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-08-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ike Naar <ike@rie.sdf.org> - 2021-08-09 05:46 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:38 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-09 01:57 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-09 10:55 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-08-04 11:48 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-08-04 19:34 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:18 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 22:35 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 23:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:46 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 17:20 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:24 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:55 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 16:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-07-30 09:08 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 18:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 17:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:33 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:10 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 21:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:49 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:44 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:08 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 19:57 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-30 23:28 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:19 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 11:12 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 20:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-30 22:10 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 00:13 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 16:36 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:23 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:29 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:25 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:52 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 00:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 16:50 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 18:01 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-08-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-08-01 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 14:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2021-08-01 19:27 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:43 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-30 23:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 02:11 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-31 20:33 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-31 02:14 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 21:23 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-31 11:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-07-31 21:21 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:54 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:47 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-30 14:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 14:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Dill <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 06:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 14:26 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-29 13:51 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-07-29 16:18 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-30 05:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 17:14 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-07-28 02:01 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 19:07 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:32 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 12:41 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 09:02 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 15:19 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2021-07-30 10:19 -0500
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 16:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> - 2021-07-30 11:28 -0400
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:20 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-09-06 05:09 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-06-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 11:50 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 12:02 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 17:05 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 13:49 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 13:39 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 15:05 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 14:34 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 18:35 +0200
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 18:14 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 11:29 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-17 08:22 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 16:22 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 17:57 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-17 17:53 +0000
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-17 21:27 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-06-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-06-18 11:25 +0100
Re: Why does C allow structs to have a tag? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-06-17 19:30 +0200
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se1k6h$tvk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162128 |
On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 30/07/2021 17:08, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: >> >>>> No, I don't, because I read the documentation. >>> >>> Are you serious? Just gcc.info is 1000 pages of options. >> >> RTFM. And, much as I dislike the GNU info utility UI, the >> data is well organized and fairly complete. >> >> >>> I don't even know what gcc bundle Keith might have. Also he doesn't have >>> tcc so he cannot say what that does or doesn't do. >> >> I believe he mentioned using cygwin gcc, which comes with glibc. > > Cygwin gcc uses newlib, not glibc. > If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off. It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I don't know what libraries will be used. Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour. Like saying that your gcc (ie. running under Cygwin) works; mine doesn't, therefore I must be doing something wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <31ZMI.77599$dp5.46941@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #162133 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off. > >It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't >even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I >don't know what libraries will be used. > >Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with >MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on >Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour. > So use WSL instead of cygwin. You can download it from the windows store, in multiple flavors. Fully supported by Microsoft.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se1oms$s39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162135 |
On 30/07/2021 21:10, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off. >> >> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't >> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I >> don't know what libraries will be used. >> >> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with >> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on >> Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour. >> > > So use WSL instead of cygwin. You can download it from the > windows store, in multiple flavors. Fully supported by > Microsoft. This is actually pretty crazy, suggesting buying a new PC with Windows 10, switching OS pretty much, to solve an utterly insignificant non-problem. Keith posted some code with "zu", that I never use myself, and would never use anyway, that I happened to mention didn't work on my plain Windows. Switching machines and OSes is a rather drastric and expensive workaround! Thanks, but I've programmed outside of Unix systems quite happily for 45 years; it's mainly you guys that can't cope without all your little Unix tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87eebfcw0h.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162136 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 30/07/2021 21:10, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off.
>>>
>>> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't
>>> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I
>>> don't know what libraries will be used.
>>>
>>> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with
>>> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on
>>> Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour.
>>>
>> So use WSL instead of cygwin. You can download it from the
>> windows store, in multiple flavors. Fully supported by
>> Microsoft.
>
> This is actually pretty crazy, suggesting buying a new PC with Windows
> 10, switching OS pretty much, to solve an utterly insignificant
> non-problem.
Nobody suggested buying a new PC.
If your current PC isn't powerful enough to support WSL (the only reason
I can think of for you to bring it up), then you can either get a new
PC or not use WSL. I have no opinion on which you should do.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <se1ri4$3it$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #162135 |
On 7/30/2021 1:10 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off. >> >> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't >> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I >> don't know what libraries will be used. >> >> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with >> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on >> Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour. >> > > So use WSL instead of cygwin. You can download it from the > windows store, in multiple flavors. Fully supported by > Microsoft. > Indeed!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 14:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87im0rcw8o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162133 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 30/07/2021 17:08, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, I don't, because I read the documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Are you serious? Just gcc.info is 1000 pages of options.
>>>
>>> RTFM. And, much as I dislike the GNU info utility UI, the
>>> data is well organized and fairly complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't even know what gcc bundle Keith might have. Also he doesn't have
>>>> tcc so he cannot say what that does or doesn't do.
>>>
>>> I believe he mentioned using cygwin gcc, which comes with glibc.
>> Cygwin gcc uses newlib, not glibc.
>>
>
> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off.
>
> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't
> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I
> don't know what libraries will be used.
>
> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with
> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler
> on Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour.
>
> Like saying that your gcc (ie. running under Cygwin) works; mine
> doesn't, therefore I must be doing something wrong.
I don't recall saying that. I said that gcc under Cygwin works as a
data point.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 00:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se20pr$eih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162145 |
On 30/07/2021 22:44, Keith Thompson wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 30/07/2021 17:08, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: >>>> >>>>>> No, I don't, because I read the documentation. >>>>> >>>>> Are you serious? Just gcc.info is 1000 pages of options. >>>> >>>> RTFM. And, much as I dislike the GNU info utility UI, the >>>> data is well organized and fairly complete. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't even know what gcc bundle Keith might have. Also he doesn't have >>>>> tcc so he cannot say what that does or doesn't do. >>>> >>>> I believe he mentioned using cygwin gcc, which comes with glibc. >>> Cygwin gcc uses newlib, not glibc. >>> >> >> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off. >> >> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't >> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I >> don't know what libraries will be used. >> >> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with >> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler >> on Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour. >> >> Like saying that your gcc (ie. running under Cygwin) works; mine >> doesn't, therefore I must be doing something wrong. > > I don't recall saying that. I said that gcc under Cygwin works as a > data point. > But why does it have to run under Cygwin? It's clearly trying to recreate some aspects of Linux under Windows. Therefore you can't compare that version of gcc with mine. For a fair comparison, install what I have, and run it as I do. THEN tell me I'm doing something wrong. Most here seem to be telling me to ditch Windows, which is effectively what using WSL is. (My main PC is Windows 7; the laptop with W10 is too underpowered for WSL; but I don't care anyway.) I don't like that; imagine if I told you lot to ditch Unix after a lifetime of working with it, because one tiny thing works better on Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <871r7fcrbc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162149 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 30/07/2021 22:44, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 30/07/2021 19:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 30/07/2021 17:08, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I don't, because I read the documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you serious? Just gcc.info is 1000 pages of options.
>>>>>
>>>>> RTFM. And, much as I dislike the GNU info utility UI, the
>>>>> data is well organized and fairly complete.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't even know what gcc bundle Keith might have. Also he doesn't have
>>>>>> tcc so he cannot say what that does or doesn't do.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe he mentioned using cygwin gcc, which comes with glibc.
>>>> Cygwin gcc uses newlib, not glibc.
>>>
>>> If you're using gcc via Cygwin, then all bets are off.
>>>
>>> It's not using gcc as a native Windows application, actually I don't
>>> even know if you still end up with EXE files rather than ELF, and I
>>> don't know what libraries will be used.
>>>
>>> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with
>>> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler
>>> on Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour.
>>>
>>> Like saying that your gcc (ie. running under Cygwin) works; mine
>>> doesn't, therefore I must be doing something wrong.
>> I don't recall saying that. I said that gcc under Cygwin works as a
>> data point.
>
> But why does it have to run under Cygwin? It's clearly trying to
> recreate some aspects of Linux under Windows. Therefore you can't
> compare that version of gcc with mine.
Who says it has to? I use a version of gcc that runs under Cygwin
because I find it convenient. I mentioned its behavior because that was
the information I had.
> For a fair comparison, install what I have, and run it as I do. THEN
> tell me I'm doing something wrong.
When did I tell you you're doing something wrong?
You're apparently using a non-conforming implementation. If you're
happy with that, I have no objection (why would I?). I will, however,
point out that it's non-conforming so that you can make whatever use of
that information you like.
You've made what I believe to be some incorrect statements. I've
replied to them.
> Most here seem to be telling me to ditch Windows, which is effectively
> what using WSL is. (My main PC is Windows 7; the laptop with W10 is
> too underpowered for WSL; but I don't care anyway.)
I haven't seen anyone here tell you to ditch Windows. If the outdated
hardware and software you're using serve your purposes, that's great.
We were discussing Cygwin, and somebody mentioned WSL *as an alternative
to Cygwin*. The person who mentioned WSL had no reason to know whether
your system is capable of supporting it. So don't use Cygwin. Don't
use WSL. Nobody here wants you to. If anybody did want you to, you
could just ignore them.
> I don't like that; imagine if I told you lot to ditch Unix after a
> lifetime of working with it, because one tiny thing works better on
> Windows.
That would be mildly annoying, and I'd probably ignore it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <se49vf$fef$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #162133 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> Cygwin is an attempt to bring elements of Linux to Windows (along with
> MSYS2 and WSL). I would not count it as directly running a C compiler on
> Windows, and you can't really compare behaviour.
You are exagerating:
- Cygwin binaries are Windows binares (they will not run natively
on other systems)
- Cygwin gcc can create binaries which are independent of Cygwin
libraries. That is how MinGW was born: they used Cygwin gcc
and slightly modified sources of Cygwnin gcc but recompiled
gcc so that it does non use Cygwin libraries.
And for clarification: Cygwin provides Posix interface. That
is OS interface similar to Unix, but several vendors agreed
to support it. Those vendors included Microsoft, IBM (which
has propritary system quite different than Unix, but supports
Posix interface to it), DEC (they had VMS, but provided also
Posix interface on it). Microsoft for many years included
Posix interface in "professional" versions of Windows.
Posix subsystem in Windows had limitations, but was good
enough to run gcc under it. Cygwin point was to provide
"better" Posix subsystem and make it available also in
home versions.
BTW: IIUC Cygwin was created slightly earlier than Linux.
Later Cygnus (creators of Cygwin) were bought by Red Hat,
but AFAIK Cygwin project is an independent unit.
BTW2: After many years of neglect at some time Microsoft
tried to substantially improve their Posix subsystem.
IIUC later they decided instead to replace it by WSL.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87czqzel4q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162113 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> But this is all getting away from the point you're trying to make,
> which is that gcc has no hand at all it in providing a 'printf'
> function for my C programs.
>
> You're wrong.
No, he's right.
> Further, if I try and compile this program:
>
> extern int printf(long long,...);
>
> int main(void) {
> printf((long long)"Hello, World!\n");
> }
>
> gcc complains that my printf conflicts with the built-in printf; so it
> knows perfectly well what it is. It will even tell me if I get the
> format codes wrong!
gcc's warning message for that is:
warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘printf’; expected
‘int(const char *, ...)’ [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
The use of the term "built-in" is slightly misleading. The printf
function is not built into the compiler. (Conceivably a compiler could
provide a built-in printf implementation, but as far as I know none do).
gcc is able to warn about the declaration because it knows about the
standard's requirements for printf, so it knows that a declaration with
a long long first parameter will conflicts with the runtime library's
implementation *in any correct implementation*.
printf is built into the implementation, not into the compiler.
gcc can compile printf("hello\n") to the equivalent of puts("hello")
because it knows how the standard requires printf and puts to behave.
(Of course gcc itself doesn't "know" anything. Its authors know these
things, and incorporate that knowledge into gcc's behavior.)
If you have somehow concluded that gcc, the compiler, provides code that
implements the printf function, you have reached an incorrect
conclusion -- and maintained that conclusion in the presence of repeated
attempts to explain it to you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 23:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <se1qt1$98p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162125 |
On 30/07/2021 20:01, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> But this is all getting away from the point you're trying to make,
>> which is that gcc has no hand at all it in providing a 'printf'
>> function for my C programs.
>>
>> You're wrong.
>
> No, he's right.
>
>> Further, if I try and compile this program:
>>
>> extern int printf(long long,...);
>>
>> int main(void) {
>> printf((long long)"Hello, World!\n");
>> }
>>
>> gcc complains that my printf conflicts with the built-in printf; so it
>> knows perfectly well what it is. It will even tell me if I get the
>> format codes wrong!
>
> gcc's warning message for that is:
>
> warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘printf’; expected
> ‘int(const char *, ...)’ [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
>
> The use of the term "built-in" is slightly misleading. The printf
> function is not built into the compiler. (Conceivably a compiler could
> provide a built-in printf implementation, but as far as I know none do).
It does say "builtin /declaration/ mismatch" - the "printf" function is
not a builtin in gcc, but the declaration is. (As you mentioned, it can
have that since the C standard specifies the declaration.)
Like many standard C functions, gcc will sometimes optimise printf
inline. But while functions like "strcat" or "memcpy" might be inlined
entirely, the inlining and optimisation of "printf" is much more
limited. gcc will turn
printf("Hello, World!\n");
into
puts("Hello, World!");
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 15:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87a6m3cumt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162142 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 30/07/2021 20:01, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> But this is all getting away from the point you're trying to make,
>>> which is that gcc has no hand at all it in providing a 'printf'
>>> function for my C programs.
>>>
>>> You're wrong.
>>
>> No, he's right.
>>
>>> Further, if I try and compile this program:
>>>
>>> extern int printf(long long,...);
>>>
>>> int main(void) {
>>> printf((long long)"Hello, World!\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> gcc complains that my printf conflicts with the built-in printf; so it
>>> knows perfectly well what it is. It will even tell me if I get the
>>> format codes wrong!
>>
>> gcc's warning message for that is:
>>
>> warning: conflicting types for built-in function ‘printf’; expected
>> ‘int(const char *, ...)’ [-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
>>
>> The use of the term "built-in" is slightly misleading. The printf
>> function is not built into the compiler. (Conceivably a compiler could
>> provide a built-in printf implementation, but as far as I know none do).
>
> It does say "builtin /declaration/ mismatch" - the "printf" function is
> not a builtin in gcc, but the declaration is. (As you mentioned, it can
> have that since the C standard specifies the declaration.)
The warning message and the option name contain different information.
And both omit some relevant information so they don't turn into novels.
Strictly speaking, the declaration of printf is in the <stdio.h> header,
which is not provided by gcc. What's built into gcc is information
about the standard's requirements for printf. That includes both how
it's declared and the semantics of the format string (used to generate
warnings when the format string is a string literal).
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878s1neknd.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162113 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> OK. But gcc and tcc are products that you expect to make the necessary
> arrangements for ensuring they your program can call a C standard
> function called "printf".
No, they are not. They are components that can be combined with other
components to create a C implementation. Getting that right is the
responsibility of whoever puts together the implementation.
You've written compilers, so you should know all this stuff.
If someone puts together an implementation that uses gcc as its compiler
and the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL as its runtime library, the result is a
non-conforming implementation.
My experience with Windows C implementations is fairly narrow, but I get
the impression that most Windows C programmers don't need to worry about
"%zu" because they use implementations that support it. If it's a
widespread problem (which is possible), I haven't heard about it other
than from you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se1jpp$r41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162126 |
On 30/07/2021 19:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> OK. But gcc and tcc are products that you expect to make the necessary
>> arrangements for ensuring they your program can call a C standard
>> function called "printf".
>
> No, they are not. They are components that can be combined with other
> components to create a C implementation. Getting that right is the
> responsibility of whoever puts together the implementation.
>
> You've written compilers, so you should know all this stuff.
>
> If someone puts together an implementation that uses gcc as its compiler
> and the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL as its runtime library, the result is a
> non-conforming implementation.
Well, /I/ didn't tell gcc which runtime to choose. Or is that now my
responsibility?
I now know that mine will default to Windows' msvcrt.dll unless I
specifically tell it to use libucrt.a. Why the default isn't the other
way around is not something I'm surprised at any more; there are much
worse defaults, and more dangerous.
> My experience with Windows C implementations is fairly narrow, but I get
> the impression that most Windows C programmers don't need to worry about
> "%zu" because they use implementations that support it. If it's a
> widespread problem (which is possible), I haven't heard about it other
> than from you.
Download tcc, which is now a well-respected C99 implementation, and
blazingly fast, and let me know if it supports "zu" out-of-the-box, and
if not, whether there is a way to make it do so.
If you're on Windows, try this:
* Download the program:
https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/qq.exe (about 640KB)
* Download program:
https://github.com/sal55/langs/blob/master/readexe.qa (about 40KB)
This can be used to look inside any EXE file, for example:
qq readexe.qa prog.exe
(Or use any utility that can dump the info.)
I'd be interested in whether any Windows executable produced by your gcc
also imports msvcrt.dll, which looks like this using my dump program:
Import Directory
....
Entry: 5c1000
Lookup RVA: 5c1050
Time Date Stamp: 0
Fwd Chain: 0
Name RVA: 5c19cc
Name: msvcrt.dll
Import Addr RVA: 5c12d0
Import:5c1550 0 free
Import:5c1558 0 memcpy
....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n%YMI.77598$dp5.20248@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #162132 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 30/07/2021 19:12, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> OK. But gcc and tcc are products that you expect to make the necessary >>> arrangements for ensuring they your program can call a C standard >>> function called "printf". >> >> No, they are not. They are components that can be combined with other >> components to create a C implementation. Getting that right is the >> responsibility of whoever puts together the implementation. >> >> You've written compilers, so you should know all this stuff. >> >> If someone puts together an implementation that uses gcc as its compiler >> and the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL as its runtime library, the result is a >> non-conforming implementation. > >Well, /I/ didn't tell gcc which runtime to choose. Or is that now my >responsibility? As David pointed out, your 'gcc' isn't 'the gcc'. It is some anonymous person building the open source gcc compiler on windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se1ps9$3vn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162134 |
On 30/07/2021 21:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/07/2021 19:12, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> OK. But gcc and tcc are products that you expect to make the necessary >>>> arrangements for ensuring they your program can call a C standard >>>> function called "printf". >>> >>> No, they are not. They are components that can be combined with other >>> components to create a C implementation. Getting that right is the >>> responsibility of whoever puts together the implementation. >>> >>> You've written compilers, so you should know all this stuff. >>> >>> If someone puts together an implementation that uses gcc as its compiler >>> and the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL as its runtime library, the result is a >>> non-conforming implementation. >> >> Well, /I/ didn't tell gcc which runtime to choose. Or is that now my >> responsibility? > > As David pointed out, your 'gcc' isn't 'the gcc'. It is some anonymous > person building the open source gcc compiler on windows. I have half a mind to change the name of my own product to 'gcc'. Then when I talk about how it works, I'd be 100% correct. And when you guys tell me what I say doesn't apply to 'the' gcc, whatever that is, then you'd now be 100% right too! For the record, my current 'gcc' that I use on plain Windows is this product: https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/download/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 15:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875ywrctxg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162138 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> For the record, my current 'gcc' that I use on plain Windows is this
> product:
>
> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/download/
https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/about/ :
TDM-GCC is a compiler suite for Windows.
It combines the most recent stable release of the GCC compiler, a
few patches for Windows-friendliness, and the free and open-source
MinGW.org or MinGW-w64 runtime APIs, to create a more lightweight
open-source alternative to Microsoft’s compiler and platform SDK.
TDM-GCC is not a compiler.
TDM-GCC is not gcc.
TDM-GCC is not produced or maintained by the gcc project.
TDM-GCC is a software package that combines a compiler (gcc) and other
components (MinGW runtime libraries, probably other things) into a C
implementation.
Other software packages might combine the gcc compiler with other
runtime library implementations. For example, there are packages that
combine the gcc compiler with Microsoft's runtime library.
If any of the above is inaccurate, Bart, I encourage you to correct me.
You seem to imply that TDM-GCC gives you an implementation that by
default uses the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL, and therefore does not support
"%zu". I find that at least mildly surprising. I might install it
myself over the weekend to see what's going on.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 00:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se212i$ftb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162148 |
On 30/07/2021 23:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> For the record, my current 'gcc' that I use on plain Windows is this
>> product:
>>
>> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/download/
>
> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/about/ :
>
> TDM-GCC is a compiler suite for Windows.
>
> It combines the most recent stable release of the GCC compiler, a
> few patches for Windows-friendliness, and the free and open-source
> MinGW.org or MinGW-w64 runtime APIs, to create a more lightweight
> open-source alternative to Microsoft’s compiler and platform SDK.
>
> TDM-GCC is not a compiler.
>
> TDM-GCC is not gcc.
>
> TDM-GCC is not produced or maintained by the gcc project.
>
> TDM-GCC is a software package that combines a compiler (gcc) and other
> components (MinGW runtime libraries, probably other things) into a C
> implementation.
>
> Other software packages might combine the gcc compiler with other
> runtime library implementations. For example, there are packages that
> combine the gcc compiler with Microsoft's runtime library.
>
> If any of the above is inaccurate, Bart, I encourage you to correct me.
>
> You seem to imply that TDM-GCC gives you an implementation that by
> default uses the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL, and therefore does not support
> "%zu". I find that at least mildly surprising. I might install it
> myself over the weekend to see what's going on.
>
C:\c>type c.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
printf("Hello, World! %zu\n",sizeof(void*));
}
C:\c>gcc --version
gcc (tdm64-1) 9.2.0
<snip>
C:\c>gcc c.c
C:\c>a
Hello, World! zu
C:\c>gcc c.c -lucrt
C:\c>a
Hello, World! 8
C:\c>gcc c.c \tdm\x86_64-w64-mingw32\lib\libmsvcrt.a
C:\c>a
Hello, World! zu
C:\c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 16:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wnp7bchb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #162150 |
Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 30/07/2021 23:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> For the record, my current 'gcc' that I use on plain Windows is this
>>> product:
>>>
>>> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/download/
>> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/about/ :
>> TDM-GCC is a compiler suite for Windows.
>> It combines the most recent stable release of the GCC compiler,
>> a
>> few patches for Windows-friendliness, and the free and open-source
>> MinGW.org or MinGW-w64 runtime APIs, to create a more lightweight
>> open-source alternative to Microsoft’s compiler and platform SDK.
>> TDM-GCC is not a compiler.
>> TDM-GCC is not gcc.
>> TDM-GCC is not produced or maintained by the gcc project.
>> TDM-GCC is a software package that combines a compiler (gcc) and
>> other
>> components (MinGW runtime libraries, probably other things) into a C
>> implementation.
>> Other software packages might combine the gcc compiler with other
>> runtime library implementations. For example, there are packages that
>> combine the gcc compiler with Microsoft's runtime library.
>> If any of the above is inaccurate, Bart, I encourage you to correct
>> me.
>> You seem to imply that TDM-GCC gives you an implementation that by
>> default uses the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL, and therefore does not support
>> "%zu". I find that at least mildly surprising. I might install it
>> myself over the weekend to see what's going on.
>
> C:\c>type c.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> int main(void) {
> printf("Hello, World! %zu\n",sizeof(void*));
> }
>
> C:\c>gcc --version
> gcc (tdm64-1) 9.2.0
> <snip>
>
> C:\c>gcc c.c
>
> C:\c>a
> Hello, World! zu
>
> C:\c>gcc c.c -lucrt
>
> C:\c>a
> Hello, World! 8
>
> C:\c>gcc c.c \tdm\x86_64-w64-mingw32\lib\libmsvcrt.a
>
> C:\c>a
> Hello, World! zu
>
> C:\c>
OK, that demonstrates that TDM-GCC by default does not support "%zu".
It doesn't directly demonstrate that it uses MSVCRT.DLL, but that's
probably the most likely explanation.
Did you want to reply to anything else I wrote? Should I assume that
you agree with the points I made above? (I would greatly appreciate a
direct reply to that last question.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 02:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <se28m8$mk9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #162153 |
On 31/07/2021 00:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 30/07/2021 23:34, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> For the record, my current 'gcc' that I use on plain Windows is this
>>>> product:
>>>>
>>>> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/download/
>>> https://jmeubank.github.io/tdm-gcc/about/ :
>>> TDM-GCC is a compiler suite for Windows.
>>> It combines the most recent stable release of the GCC compiler,
>>> a
>>> few patches for Windows-friendliness, and the free and open-source
>>> MinGW.org or MinGW-w64 runtime APIs, to create a more lightweight
>>> open-source alternative to Microsoft’s compiler and platform SDK.
>>> TDM-GCC is not a compiler.
>>> TDM-GCC is not gcc.
>>> TDM-GCC is not produced or maintained by the gcc project.
>>> TDM-GCC is a software package that combines a compiler (gcc) and
>>> other
>>> components (MinGW runtime libraries, probably other things) into a C
>>> implementation.
>>> Other software packages might combine the gcc compiler with other
>>> runtime library implementations. For example, there are packages that
>>> combine the gcc compiler with Microsoft's runtime library.
>>> If any of the above is inaccurate, Bart, I encourage you to correct
>>> me.
>>> You seem to imply that TDM-GCC gives you an implementation that by
>>> default uses the obsolete MSVCRT.DLL, and therefore does not support
>>> "%zu". I find that at least mildly surprising. I might install it
>>> myself over the weekend to see what's going on.
>>
>> C:\c>type c.c
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> int main(void) {
>> printf("Hello, World! %zu\n",sizeof(void*));
>> }
>>
>> C:\c>gcc --version
>> gcc (tdm64-1) 9.2.0
>> <snip>
>>
>> C:\c>gcc c.c
>>
>> C:\c>a
>> Hello, World! zu
>>
>> C:\c>gcc c.c -lucrt
>>
>> C:\c>a
>> Hello, World! 8
>>
>> C:\c>gcc c.c \tdm\x86_64-w64-mingw32\lib\libmsvcrt.a
>>
>> C:\c>a
>> Hello, World! zu
>>
>> C:\c>
>
> OK, that demonstrates that TDM-GCC by default does not support "%zu".
> It doesn't directly demonstrate that it uses MSVCRT.DLL, but that's
> probably the most likely explanation.
A program compiled with or without -lucrt will import msvcrt.dll (from
looking inside the exe file). But it only imports vfprintf() that is
relevant.
(gcc's stdio.h defines printf in terms of __mingw_vfprintf, so will not
import printf directly.)
>
> Did you want to reply to anything else I wrote? Should I assume that
> you agree with the points I made above? (I would greatly appreciate a
> direct reply to that last question.)
>
Those seem to be your conclusions (not sure how you got those from that
About page). But I can't see the point of arguing about this.
That page is right: tdm-gcc is unlike other compilers, but I would
extend that to say that gcc (whatever it is) is quite unlike other
whatevers of its type.
Step away from the crazy world of the Unix (etc) ecosystem, and my
experience of compilers is rather different.
(I used an analogy once of buying a car. For your money, you expect it
to come with the necessary features such as an engine, and 4 wheels.
Everthing needed to drive from A to B. Just don't buy a car from the
people who wrote gcc...)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web