Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-21 16:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-06-22 03:25 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 16:20 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-06-21 22:31 +0800
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 16:35 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 22:52 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 14:43 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 17:50 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 00:21 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 18:39 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 00:44 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 16:00 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 21:03 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 18:47 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 00:50 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 20:19 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 01:46 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 21:07 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 10:22 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 21:27 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 08:30 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 16:43 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 02:36 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 21:54 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 05:38 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 09:03 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 17:20 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:36 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 00:34 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 09:55 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-23 08:35 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 11:32 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-24 09:51 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 17:03 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions gordonb.muhly@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-22 05:17 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 09:08 -0400
Re: Snipping attribution lines Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-23 22:20 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 16:57 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-22 00:54 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 12:35 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 21:10 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 19:21 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 22:55 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 13:41 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-22 05:01 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-22 01:48 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-06-23 00:06 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 23:42 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-06-23 23:04 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:28 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:23 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-23 09:53 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-22 08:34 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 10:38 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-22 11:09 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-22 07:47 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 16:49 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-22 17:43 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 17:47 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 20:42 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 18:10 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 10:52 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-22 09:16 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 09:38 +1200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-22 10:53 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 11:56 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-22 09:21 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-06-23 13:32 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-23 22:37 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 11:07 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 13:40 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 13:56 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:20 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:44 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 15:50 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 16:57 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 17:38 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 07:49 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 17:17 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 18:34 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 20:08 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-23 20:42 +0100
More useful memory functions asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-06-21 07:43 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-21 17:25 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 10:06 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 21:46 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 14:26 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:17 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 22:55 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 14:45 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 15:14 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 09:44 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-21 19:18 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-21 23:42 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 00:33 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-22 08:42 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-22 08:23 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-21 21:45 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 10:56 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-21 18:35 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 21:39 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 00:39 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 18:41 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-22 00:47 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 17:08 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 17:12 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-22 00:58 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-22 21:02 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-23 20:56 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 21:17 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-23 21:58 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 22:06 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-23 21:21 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 22:48 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-23 23:17 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 23:25 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-24 00:35 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 00:39 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-23 15:37 -0700
Re: Microsoft C run-time Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-23 23:22 +0200
Re: Microsoft C run-time jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-23 23:27 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-23 13:42 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 19:00 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 01:52 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:25 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 09:53 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 01:59 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 11:05 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 11:23 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 07:55 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-24 07:48 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:47 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-03 17:34 +0000
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-05 05:27 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 11:28 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 11:50 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 12:58 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 14:20 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2015-06-24 14:27 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 13:38 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:16 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 16:57 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 13:47 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 14:48 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-24 18:45 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 14:12 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 17:12 +0200
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:27 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 14:41 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-24 07:53 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 16:17 +0100
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 08:34 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 18:48 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 18:56 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 20:53 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:52 -0700
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-24 10:31 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-24 14:15 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-06-25 09:57 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 11:34 +0100
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 13:11 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 12:38 +0100
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-25 16:13 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-25 09:49 -0700
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-25 11:32 -0500
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 18:37 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-25 19:56 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 20:33 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-25 12:46 -0700
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 13:08 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-26 13:22 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-25 11:57 -0700
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-25 16:32 -0500
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-25 23:11 +0100
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-25 20:09 -0500
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:15 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-26 01:54 -0700
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 11:17 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-26 13:36 +0100
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 17:45 +0200
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 09:28 -0500
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 17:48 +0200
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-26 11:30 -0500
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 09:00 +0200
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-27 11:08 -0500
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-28 18:07 +0100
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-28 22:26 -0500
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 09:49 +0200
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-29 09:05 -0500
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 16:54 +0200
Re: gcc FUD BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-29 12:39 -0500
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-26 14:05 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-27 11:40 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-27 16:33 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-27 12:24 -0700
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-27 22:37 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-27 22:31 +0100
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-28 00:47 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-28 11:28 +0100
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-28 14:00 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-28 05:44 -0700
Re: gcc FUD Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 13:47 +0100
Re: gcc FUD Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-28 05:55 -0700
Re: gcc FUD Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-28 18:42 +0100
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 07:27 +0200
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 10:17 +0200
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 11:05 +0200
Re: gcc FUD David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-29 11:34 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-28 02:14 -0500
Re: gcc FUD Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-28 08:57 +1200
Re: gcc FUD Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-26 10:18 +0100
Re: gcc FUD "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 11:26 +0200
Re: gcc FUD Paul <nospam@needed.com> - 2015-06-26 08:05 -0400
Re: More useful memory functions BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: More useful memory functions Gordon Burditt <gordon@hammy.burditt.org> - 2015-06-22 03:25 -0500
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 13:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21421139-cb31-4197-9f63-507c7003be8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #63979 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:58:32 PM UTC+1, Noob wrote: > > Obviously, I don't see how a single person could outwork several > dozens full-time paid devs plus several hundreds casual devs. > That's to misunderstand software. Most programs have a "core" which is an algorithm. Whilst it's not trivial, it's essentially simple once you understand the principle on which it works. The core is then surrounded by a large amount of "scaffolding" which is designed to let the user feed data to the core, see the results, reformat them, and so on. The "scaffolding" is a lot of work, it's hard to get right because binary bit patterns are too hard for the user to enter. If you've got a better "core" than the competition, and reasonable "scaffolding" that does the job, you can easily compete with only one developer. So any experienced programmer can knock up a windowing system that writes to a memory-mapped screen buffer, provides graphics facilities, and doesn't let the graphics routines write outside of the window. It takes a couple of months, if that. But you can't provide the millions of lines of code that comprise MS Windows. However if your user's priority is to get windows up on screen, and he's not interested in legacy support for 256 colour VGA, left-handed mice, small pixel-size Unicode fonts, and all the rest of the apparatus, your system may well be better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 19:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mmcs6c$p58$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #63986 |
On 6/23/2015 3:42 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 8:58:32 PM UTC+1, Noob wrote: >> >> Obviously, I don't see how a single person could outwork several >> dozens full-time paid devs plus several hundreds casual devs. >> > That's to misunderstand software. > Most programs have a "core" which is an algorithm. Whilst it's not > trivial, it's essentially simple once you understand the principle > on which it works. > The core is then surrounded by a large amount of "scaffolding" > which is designed to let the user feed data to the core, see > the results, reformat them, and so on. The "scaffolding" is a lot > of work, it's hard to get right because binary bit patterns are > too hard for the user to enter. > > If you've got a better "core" than the competition, and reasonable > "scaffolding" that does the job, you can easily compete with only > one developer. So any experienced programmer can knock up a > windowing system that writes to a memory-mapped screen buffer, > provides graphics facilities, and doesn't let the graphics routines > write outside of the window. It takes a couple of months, if that. > But you can't provide the millions of lines of code that comprise MS > Windows. However if your user's priority is to get windows up on > screen, and he's not interested in legacy support for 256 colour > VGA, left-handed mice, small pixel-size Unicode fonts, and all the > rest of the apparatus, your system may well be better. > yeah. like with a specialized compiler and VM: only a few targets and a fairly limited range of use-cases is needed. it is effort, but far from impossible, for someone to throw together something which does what they need to be done. will every possible piece of code work flawlessly, with good performance, and on every target?... probably not. doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, as things aren't all or nothing. also, not everyone likes GPL. some of us are more fans of MIT or 3-clause BSD or similar... one may also prefer LGPL over GPL though. although arguably not good for code, have considered releasing some things as CC BY-NC-ND (basically, the code is available, but intended for personal use only, in a way sort of the reverse of binary-only software). though, this is a special case. it depends a lot on the code (likewise for whether or not code is released at all). like, sometimes, someone may want people to be able to run freely with it, other things may want to be kept under control, and some things may not be ready to be seen by the world (mostly for very specialized or experimental stuff). or such...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 01:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmcuu3$22l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #63979 |
On 23/06/2015 20:58, Noob wrote: > On 23/06/2015 21:17, jacobnavia wrote: >> Gcc *is* a good compiler (much better than mine of course). > > Obviously, I don't see how a single person could outwork several > dozens full-time paid devs plus several hundreds casual devs. gcc is a monster that keeps getting bigger - and slower. I'm not surprised that hundreds of people are needed to keep feeding it. I prefer to use my own tiny compiler that, as far as I'm concerned, does the same job, and does it very quickly with a lot less fuss. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mmd865$n1d$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #64016 |
On 6/23/2015 7:52 PM, Bartc wrote: > On 23/06/2015 20:58, Noob wrote: >> On 23/06/2015 21:17, jacobnavia wrote: > >>> Gcc *is* a good compiler (much better than mine of course). >> >> Obviously, I don't see how a single person could outwork several >> dozens full-time paid devs plus several hundreds casual devs. > > gcc is a monster that keeps getting bigger - and slower. I'm not > surprised that hundreds of people are needed to keep feeding it. > > I prefer to use my own tiny compiler that, as far as I'm concerned, does > the same job, and does it very quickly with a lot less fuss. > yeah. I am left to question sometimes if we really need "one compiler to rule them all". assuming the interface was fairly consistent (or not, for those of us who already use different compilers on different targets), I am not really sure it would be really all that much different if different targets were using different compilers (more so when things like cross-compiling get involved). smaller and more specialized compilers could also be useful in cases where one needs non-standard code generation, say, because they are making different operating assumptions for a target vs what the original compiler-writer assumed. say, they are using an otherwise generic ARM processor, but with a funky ABI being used because they need to use a faster-switching cooperative scheduler rather than a slower-switching preemptive scheduler (say, for example, they need to be able to swap threads on a 1MHz clock vs a few kHz or so), meaning the code may need to periodically generate calls to hand control off to the scheduler (to give it a chance to swap threads). customizing GCC is likely a big pain, whereas a smaller compiler could likely be tweaked a little easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mmdr3s$b6i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64017 |
On 24/06/2015 04:25, BGB wrote: > On 6/23/2015 7:52 PM, Bartc wrote: >> gcc is a monster that keeps getting bigger - and slower. I'm not >> surprised that hundreds of people are needed to keep feeding it. > customizing GCC is likely a big pain, whereas a smaller compiler could > likely be tweaked a little easier. I think that's where compilers such as lccwin come in. I wouldn't know where to start with gcc. Forget customising, how do you even build it to work normally when it's outside its comfort zone (ie. Linux)? There are a few reasons why people use gcc: * It produces quite good code (at least for x86; apparently it's not so hot on ARM) * It exists for practically every processor imaginable * It has a few attractive extensions, such as label addresses. (Apparently, CPython makes use of label pointers within gcc, which it uses for Linux. On Windows, it compiles with MSVC without label pointers, hence CPython runs somewhat slower on Windows than under Linux on exactly the same machine.) * If code is developed on Linux, and most open source code seems to be, then it seems to be a rule that it has to use gcc. Makefiles will make certain of that anyway! * Because it is ubiquitous, if you are distributing code, it makes sense to make sure it compiles with gcc. So it's big, slow and complex, but it's difficult to get away from it! You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being able to build on anything that has gcc installed. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 01:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1747521-558e-4fd6-9b2e-cf562951db8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64026 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 9:53:44 AM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being > able to build on anything that has gcc installed. On this score, gcc is the worst compiler in the world, except for all the others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 11:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ioadifp4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64026 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being > able to build on anything that has gcc installed. I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to portability about gcc. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 11:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mme0bs$s2d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64034 |
On 24/06/15 11:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> >> You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being >> able to build on anything that has gcc installed. > > I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the > default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to > portability about gcc. It isn't gcc itself that is detrimental to the concept of portability, but the mind-set that "gcc works everywhere, so I can use gcc-specific code and still be portable". That's fine up to a point, but that point may well be the moment at which your customer says "ok, now I need the code to compile on Borland, so that we can bolt a Windows interface to the front end", and suddenly you have a portability problem. Is that mind-set universal among gcc users? No, of course not. So it's not gcc itself that's the problem. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 07:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mme9jt$vvl$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #64036 |
On 6/24/2015 5:23 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 24/06/15 11:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> <snip> >>> You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being >>> able to build on anything that has gcc installed. >> >> I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the >> default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to >> portability about gcc. > > It isn't gcc itself that is detrimental to the concept of portability, > but the mind-set that "gcc works everywhere, so I can use gcc-specific > code and still be portable". That's fine up to a point, but that point > may well be the moment at which your customer says "ok, now I need the > code to compile on Borland, so that we can bolt a Windows interface to > the front end", and suddenly you have a portability problem. > > Is that mind-set universal among gcc users? No, of course not. So it's > not gcc itself that's the problem. > remember once modifying code for VLC media player so I could build it using MSVC on Windows (for personal use), as I just wasn't getting it built successfully using either GCC (MinGW and Cygwin), nor using the recommended strategy of using the Linux version of MinGW to cross-compile for Windows. some of the VLC devs found out and there was much raging at the time, them seeing the notion of building VLC on a compiler like MSVC as "evil". later ended up mostly just writing Windows codec drivers and doing things through Media Player Classic and VirtualDub instead (partly as using VLC for much beyond a video player is a mess). theoretically, VLC can be used for things like streaming/transcoding and limited video-editing tasks, but the interface is terrible, and it is prone to "not work so good" (output files are unreadable and/or have terrible video quality, and/or cause VLC to crash). better is VirtualDub (good for transcoding/..., poor for editing) and MovieMaker (good for editing, if you can get stuff loaded into it, only accepts AVI input and only produces WMV output). though, pretty much nothing I have can successfully transcode the videos my cellphone records (the rare few transcoders I have that accept 3GP, can't seem to correctly decode the audio), best I can do is upload them to YouTube. I have a much better camera, but sadly end up hardly ever using it, as it is so much more bigger/inconvenient than a cellphone. also generally too lazy to do voice-overs (and my voice sucks, I suspect it is better when I don't say anything), and likewise for subtitles (lots of effort, often don't convey much information).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 07:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b6ef4e0-31b3-4d33-a74e-2bceba45a679@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64055 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 1:59:50 PM UTC+1, BGB wrote: > > some of the VLC devs found out and there was much raging at the time, > them seeing the notion of building VLC on a compiler like MSVC as "evil". > Stallman and his followers have some rather odd political ideas. You don't have to subscribe to them wholesale to appreciate that they do a lot of good work for the development community. Reality is that you often need stuff to compile under MSVC. MS has a habit of using its market position to break standards, which, as an engineer, is infuriating. But our interests don't fully coincide. I want to be able to take my code and use it anywhere, MS wants to lock me into Windows. Apple are just as bad. They've banned emulation layers on some of their products.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mmejlc$pg1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #64063 |
On 6/24/2015 9:48 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 1:59:50 PM UTC+1, BGB wrote: >> >> some of the VLC devs found out and there was much raging at the time, >> them seeing the notion of building VLC on a compiler like MSVC as "evil". >> > Stallman and his followers have some rather odd political ideas. You don't > have to subscribe to them wholesale to appreciate that they do a lot of > good work for the development community. Reality is that you often need > stuff to compile under MSVC. yeah. I would personally assume writing code portable enough to compile on a range of compilers (as opposed to just ones which happen to be called GCC). > MS has a habit of using its market position to break standards, which, as an > engineer, is infuriating. But our interests don't fully coincide. I want to be > able to take my code and use it anywhere, MS wants to lock me into Windows. > Apple are just as bad. They've banned emulation layers on some of their > products. there is a difference though between making the code MS-specific, and modifying code into a form which builds on MS compilers. these changes were more in terms of replacing some GCC extensions and unsupported features (C99 stuff), with stuff that worked in MSVC. I have over the years ended up doing this a lot, mostly as I tend to use MS's compiler for Windows builds (it does Windows stuff well), and typically GCC for other targets (usually, whatever works).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-03 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5596c77c.10497500@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #64036 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 24/06/15 11:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > <snip> > >> You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being > >> able to build on anything that has gcc installed. > > > > I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the > > default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to > > portability about gcc. > > It isn't gcc itself that is detrimental to the concept of portability, > but the mind-set that "gcc works everywhere, so I can use gcc-specific > code and still be portable". Exactly. It's the same mind-set that infests Microsoft adherents, and it's time the GNU crowd acknowledged their similarity. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-05 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beb316c9-26fe-478a-8da6-8276e488d009@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64639 |
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 6:34:37 PM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > > > It isn't gcc itself that is detrimental to the concept of portability, > > but the mind-set that "gcc works everywhere, so I can use gcc-specific > > code and still be portable". > > Exactly. It's the same mind-set that infests Microsoft adherents, and > it's time the GNU crowd acknowledged their similarity. > It's really hard to get portable code. Most user-level programs at least can't run without some sort of GUI. And that has to work closely with the OS. All the OSes provide essentially the same services, but they do it differently, and you can't just map one function call to another.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 11:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mme0mp$t4i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64034 |
On 24/06/2015 11:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> >> You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being >> able to build on anything that has gcc installed. > > I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the > default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to > portability about gcc. The concern is dependency on gcc (which my projects have at present partly because I've taken my eye off the ball, but also I've lost interest in the struggle to make my C code compile with anything). And with gcc go all the gcc-specific pragmas, gcc-specific extensions, gcc-specific makefiles, gcc-specific compile options, ... So I mean portability in the sense of being able to grab the nearest C compiler, whichever it is, and just use that. Otherwise, is there any point in having any other C compiler? -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d20lidn1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #64038 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 24/06/2015 11:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> <snip> >>> You also wave goodbye to portability, unless portability means being >>> able to build on anything that has gcc installed. >> >> I don't know what you mean by that. Are you complaining about the >> default compiler options? If not, I can't see what's so detrimental to >> portability about gcc. > > The concern is dependency on gcc (which my projects have at present > partly because I've taken my eye off the ball, but also I've lost > interest in the struggle to make my C code compile with anything). > > And with gcc go all the gcc-specific pragmas, gcc-specific extensions, > gcc-specific makefiles, gcc-specific compile options, ... > > So I mean portability in the sense of being able to grab the nearest C > compiler, whichever it is, and just use that. You meant, then, that by using the extensions you wave goodbye to portability? That's true of course but hardly unique to gcc. Your complaint about gcc is that it has particularly attractive extensions? > Otherwise, is there any point in having any other C compiler? And I'm stumped again. You might choose one compiler for the hands-on support and bug fixing for some special target (I think that's Jacob's niche, but there are others). You might choose another compiler because it generates better code. It's not all about extensions, surely? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 12:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mme5tq$ef3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64039 |
On 24/06/2015 11:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> So I mean portability in the sense of being able to grab the nearest C >> compiler, whichever it is, and just use that. > > You meant, then, that by using the extensions you wave goodbye to > portability? That's true of course but hardly unique to gcc. Your > complaint about gcc is that it has particularly attractive extensions? Go back a few posts and see my reasons why people might use gcc or feel obliged to. If you think that being locked in to a particular compiler and toolset is acceptable, that the code involved is still considered portable, then that's fine; I'll withdraw my comments. (However I privately feel that a project that is ostensibly written in C, but in reality depends on these other factors, isn't actually in C at all, but in C-GCC-4.X.X-BASH-MAKE-6.X-whatever. Whether the C involved is -89, -90, -99, or -11 is a minor detail! And this is even more true when much of the C source is buried under masses of preprocessor directives. Because IMO overuse of those isn't proper C either. But there at least, that doesn't matter too much if you just want to compile the code, not understand it.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 14:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mme771$jh2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64043 |
On 24/06/15 13:58, Bartc wrote: > On 24/06/2015 11:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> So I mean portability in the sense of being able to grab the nearest C >>> compiler, whichever it is, and just use that. >> >> You meant, then, that by using the extensions you wave goodbye to >> portability? That's true of course but hardly unique to gcc. Your >> complaint about gcc is that it has particularly attractive extensions? > > Go back a few posts and see my reasons why people might use gcc or feel > obliged to. > > If you think that being locked in to a particular compiler and toolset > is acceptable, that the code involved is still considered portable, then > that's fine; I'll withdraw my comments. > > (However I privately feel that a project that is ostensibly written in > C, but in reality depends on these other factors, isn't actually in C at > all, but in C-GCC-4.X.X-BASH-MAKE-6.X-whatever. Whether the C involved > is -89, -90, -99, or -11 is a minor detail! > > And this is even more true when much of the C source is buried under > masses of preprocessor directives. Because IMO overuse of those isn't > proper C either. But there at least, that doesn't matter too much if you > just want to compile the code, not understand it.) > Let me get this straight - you say that one of the great things about gcc is the extensions. You use those extensions to write better code, and then you are complaining that gcc is "forcing" you to write non-portable code and locking you in?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 14:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mme7k8$jvr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64047 |
Le 24/06/2015 14:20, David Brown a écrit : > Let me get this straight - you say that one of the great things about > gcc is the extensions. You use those extensions to write better code, > and then you are complaining that gcc is "forcing" you to write > non-portable code and locking you in? No, he is confusing things. Extensions are OK when is gcc. Extensions are a "vendor lock in" when they are lcc-win's extensions. Discussing gcc trivia in this group is OK. Discussing lcc-win is not. Why? Because... well, I do not know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 13:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mme899$nac$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64050 |
On 24/06/15 13:27, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 24/06/2015 14:20, David Brown a écrit : >> Let me get this straight - you say that one of the great things about >> gcc is the extensions. You use those extensions to write better code, >> and then you are complaining that gcc is "forcing" you to write >> non-portable code and locking you in? > > No, he is confusing things. > > Extensions are OK when is gcc. It's okay for gcc to provide them, and it's okay for people to use them, but they're not topical here. > Extensions are a "vendor lock in" when they are lcc-win's extensions. It's okay for lcc-win to provide them, and it's okay for people to use them, but they're not topical here. > Discussing gcc trivia in this group is OK. Discussing lcc-win is not. Discussing anything that isn't ISO C here is, strictly speaking, not okay, but people do it anyway. > Why? I think it's simply because you're the vendor, and so it smacks of commercialism, which isn't what Usenet is about. If one of the Walters (Bright and Banks) were constantly plugging their compilers in here (which you used to do, but don't do so much of nowadays), they'd eventually get much the same reaction. (Walter Banks, at least, used to be a fairly frequent poster to comp.lang.c, but I don't remember his ever, not even once, plugging either his compiler or its extensions.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-24 08:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <291e254d-3af2-4af1-8740-ca976f7febcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #64052 |
On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 1:38:26 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Discussing anything that isn't ISO C here is, strictly speaking, not > okay, ... it is often asserted, but never demonstrated. > but people do it anyway. Good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web